Talk:Parapsychology/archive3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Talk Page Archive

Archive 2 has been created with a link at above right. The previous Archive 1 page link has also been moved there. Archive 3, when needed in the future, should be a new subpage (same as creating an article) titled "Talk:Parapsychology/archive3" and the link added to the template on this page's code. Some of the talk pages prior to November 29, 2006 to the beginning (18 Aug 2001) may also have used the refactoring method of talk page management. Archives 1 and 2 therefore may not be a complete record of all discussions (though the very first post is in Archive 1). To view other archived talk pages follow these steps: 1. Click on the "History" tab at the top of this page. 2. Click on any date that you wish. That's all you have to do. You will be taken to Wiki's archived talk page for that date. To find the very first talk pages, click on the "Earliest" link at the bottom of the "History" page and scroll down to the links at the bottom of the page. For further information on archiving see Wikipedia:How_to_archive_a_talk_page or click on "Archives" in the upper right archives info box. 5Q5 18:54, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ganzfeld

Concerning a series of computer-controlled ganzfeld experiments done by the parapsychologist Charles Honorton in the 1980s, magician Ford Kross, an officer of the Psychic Entertainers Association wrote that

In my professional capicity as a mentalist, I have reviewed Psychophysical Research Laboratories' automated ganzfield system and found it to provide excellent security against deception by subjects.[32][5](Radin 1997:86)

(My bolding)

The quote features an incorrect spelling of "ganzfeld", which should be checked against the source. If it is an error in the source, "sic" should be added.

Additionally, I believe "ganzfeld" in the first paragraph deserves a wikilink to the ganzfeld page.

Jouster 23:29, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for checking my spelling. Go ahead and give it a link (: Martinphi 07:30, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Parapsychology as Taboo

Tried to reach a more neutral position for those chaps who seem so put-upon. The profferred link does not work - I even explored Mr. Hess' website at some length without success - but I left the link for the more ambitious to fix. If Mr. Hess really has good statistics showing a substantially smaller fraction of grant proposals for "psi" research are funded maybe I would relent on the wording there. There are so many proposals denied for things like writing quality, finding the right office to which to send it, budget, or the competition from proposals judged to be more valuable that is would be in any case (without using psi powers) to know why a given proposal is rejected. Carrionluggage 22:29, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Your wording seems fine, I added one sentense. I also fixed the link, thanks for checking it. Try to use a heading on this page, so people know what you're talking about. Martinphi 00:04, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Criticism and response

I re-inserted some old stuff, with edits and sources, moved the Parapsychology as Taboo bit to a new place, as it no longer fit its heading. Martinphi 23:01, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I have made an addition to Other Skeptical Views to include view on availability of data. Rikstar 00:31, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Please see further a addition to this section, although I am inviting others to do the 'response' bit. I have included criticism of parapsychology with regard to it being isolated - other sciences don't seem to need psi to help solve their own problems Rikstar 14:52, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

A lot of tightening up has to be done on this section. At several spots it is not clear what is meant when you are talking about statistics. If cannot figure it out sometimes. Also some repsonse only partially answer the critisism and are silent about the rest. Below response is too long and misses out on some new insights in normal psychology and science (I marked those in bold):

"Psi" is the name for an unknown factor, not necessarily for a force or factor outside the current range of scientific knowledge. However, it does seem that psi has some features which may be outside the range of current scientific theory. For instance, the Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research Laboratory often included a precognitive aspect (Damasio finds the same and attributes this to unconscious decision making mechanisms in the brain), and the studies obtained very highly significant results.[1] (Radin 1997:91-109) Skeptics and parapsychologists generally agree that, as per Occam's Razor, simple explanations should be preferred for any resulting theories of psi (what is the point of Occam in this context; Occams sais something like: When 2 theories have the same explanatory power the one with the least far-fetching assumptions is generally preferred). Some parapsychologists are critical of skeptics' explanations of parapsychological results (for instance that they are the result of fraud) specifically because such explanations are un-parsimonious (The problems is that there has been more frauds then in most other fields. The assumption 'There is only fraud' is very parsimonious (one single assumption of which even some evidence exist...). The field has to live with its own heeritage. It often stretches the imagination to believe that parapsychological results are due to fraud or other conventional explanations (this is no argument). Conventional explanations, many parapsychologists believe, should also conform to Occam's Razor (So do traditional scientists; the problems is the debate how far-fetching the Psi assumption is; this crops up in evolution as well all the time, assuming an omniscient, omnipotent deity is only one assumption and thus much more parsimonious then any theory evolutionist can come up with). Then there are others, both skeptics and proponents, who agree that nature itself is frequently un-parsimonious (Which does not matter as Occams talks about science not nature, the razor is about explanatory power of a model (ie a simplication of nature): If you design a model which better explains reality then traditional ones, the model can be more complex, but if two models perform exactly the same, the simpler is preferred). After all, it would be much simpler if nothing at all existed, or if only one type of particle existed, or if there were only one dimension of space (as may exist in a black hole). -- These issues need to be rephrased in my opinion to more neutral and (yes ;-) parismonious ways. Arnoutf 10:10, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Quality of Razin reference

About: The Conscious Universe: The Scientific Truth of Psychic Phenomena by Dean I. Radin Harper Edge. As this ref is used no fewer than 24 times I did some looking into it, and reading the reviews it seems a fairly biased (in favour of) parapsychology book. So I would sugggest to be very careful in using this book as an authorative source on anything here. Arnoutf 23:27, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, that means that parapsychology must be defined in reference to debate? There are a few points here. First, that you can't get a more authoritative source in the field. Dean Radin -it seems to me- is at the top on the "pro" side, and Hyman is at the top on the "con" side. I have never heard of anyone who doesn't take a position and is authoritative.
Second, if you saw a book on evolution written by one of the most eminent scientists in the field, you wouldn't question the use of it as a source, even though evolution is also controversial. At what level of controversy does one say that one needs neutral sources? Where would you find a nutral source for the question of whether Creationism or evolution are correct? You don't actually need neutral sources here. You need to present both sides, and you need the sources to be authoritative. Unless I am mistaken about the policy.
Third, since parapsychology is indeed so controversial, you can't read the reviews (I've seen some stupid ones), and expect to get a good idea of whether the book is credible, or of what it says.
Fourth, if we were going to go by policy here, we could present the scientific consensus, which would mean the consensus of scientists in the field, in which case skepticism would get merely an honorable(?) mention, and Radin's book, since is is written by one of the premier scientists in the field, (President of the PA and a researcher), would be an extremely acceptable source. Also see here
I think you could really only complain that this book isn't a peer-reviewed journal, but given its author and content, it is worthy of its prominence as a source in the article. Martinphi (Talk|Contribs) 08:14, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
My main problem with the book is, that it is used to counter all con arguments (which DO come from various sources). As the book is indeed non-peer-reviewed this makes judgement of the argument quality rather difficult; I would be much happier if the con arguments would be countered by multiple sources.
Furhtermore the prominence of the book may shed doubt on the quality of the article as one could argue this article is nothing more than an enlarged synopsis of the book. Arnoutf 09:40, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Dean Radin's books are collections of different research, they cover work by Edwin May, Daryl Bem, Michael Persinger, Jessica Utts, Brian Josephson as well as Radin himself. His intension, judging by the introduction to his first book, was to counter the common assertion that there is no evidence in favour of psi. It might be helpful to go to the original source papers, many of which are peer reviewed and add those where available rather than constantly referring to the secondary source of Radin's book. - Solar 12:09, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
That sounds like a great idea! especially as collecting papers in a book inevitably adds a point of view and interpretation (of the author of the book); this is true in every science. Arnoutf 12:45, 27 December 2006 (UTC)


Agreed. I wrote or sourced most of the article, and I don't have access to a library. I did the best I could with what I had. Martinphi (Talk|Contribs) 20:37, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Other Criticisms

The response to comment about psi not being a proper interdisciplinary field is interesting, but it raises the issue of using/abusing established quantum physical theories. This needs to be addressed. Please await my edit regarding this. For now, I think the phrase:

"In reality however, parapsychology can contribute in many ways"

is POV; it stromgly implies that parapsychologists can make valid observation leading to progess in other scientific disciplines (if only those beastly orthodox scientists would let 'em). In reality, we simply do not know if this would be the case. This should be changed to: "...parapsychologists believe they could contribute in many ways". Or get rid of the line altogether Rikstar 14:51, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the line needed to be changed (so I changed) it, but for different reasons. It didn't work with the previous sentence. POVs are all through these criticisms and responses so that wasn't an issue for me. Having both POVs (although strongly POV), I feel, meets the NPOV policy. The criticisms are littered with POVs as well, after all.
I did want to comment on the idea that the response might raise an issue of quantum physics theories as explanations for psi. Since I wrote most of it, I wanted to point out that it in no way says that psi can be explained by quantum theories in this section. It says, instead, that quantum theory might benefit from research into psi, not the other way around. Quantum theory may need psi to explain what's going on, or may not. That's not a point that was made. Psi may need quantum theory to explain what is going on, or may not. That's not a point that was made either. The point that was made is that quantum physics might (<-in italics) benefit from psi research eventhough psi research is often excluded.--~Nealparr~ (Talk|Contribs) 19:02, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Right, 2 opposite POVs are NPOV. The atomic charge theory of Wikipedia. No ion articles. But Rikstar is right that QM has been abused a lot. Radin uses it a lot in Entangled Minds, and at the moment at least this is a metaphorical kind of thing. Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 22:55, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Hmm... I see my QM contribution has been cut down to a 'manageable size'. And how. My John Wheeler quote - now removed - was included to truly reflect the genuine consternation felt by some scientists, as opposed to the glib bias or prejudice of other skeptics who cry "fraud", etc. My Josephson quote was included because his prediction has so far not come true; the fact that it has been added to the opposing response has hijacked a perfectly valid objective. The connection between psi and physics is, from the above admissions, weak; but this latest response gives the impression that few psi proponents have ever embraced or misunderstood modern physical theories to their own ends (which has implications about their expertise, bias and motives), yet there is loads of stuff supporting this very trend. We've got stuff in this article about the bias, dogmatism, etc of orthodox science (I added some myself), but there needs to be some balance.Rikstar 01:11, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
I hate to be critical of the criticism in this article, but I was going to post a response in this section about quantum physics and realized that the whole thing is just going to keep going and going and going, sort of like a forum thread. Many of the criticisms are about parapsychology being a pseudoscience. In fact most of them are. Most of the responses are that skeptics are biased, which they are.
The response I was going to post went somewhere along the lines that it is arrogant for skeptics to say that they have a better understanding of physics than parapsychologists because really there's no reason skeptics should have a better understanding. Unless physics is your field of study, you rely on physicists to report back to you no matter who you are, skeptic or otherwise. The only people who should have a better understanding of physics is physicists, and some of them are pro-skeptic, and some of them are pro-believer. When you get right down to it, quantum physics is a relatively new field of science, as opposed to say classical mechanics, and theories abound in it because it's a science in process. Some well-respected physicists subscribe to the interpretation of human consciousness interaction. Some of them don't. Around and around it goes. For one to say they have a better understanding than physicists who support parapsychology, just because they are skeptical (the easiest position in all things) just oozes with arrogance.
My point is that all of the criticisms are like this, whether it involves quantum theories, experiment methologies, or whatever. Skeptics think it's bunk. Believers think it's valid. Couldn't we just say that? : )
--~Nealparr~ (Talk|Contribs) 03:07, 30 December 2006 (UTC)


I feel as if maybe I should ask you both to not give up. Rikstar, I'd been working on the parapsychology page for a couple weeks, when someone came along and basically deleted the whole thing for lack of sources. And the page is better for it.
I don't think I hijacked the crit, but it had to be cut down. Otherwise, as I explained on your talk page Rikstar, it needed its own article. I think what needs to be changed is that there needs to be very clear that some -not all as you said- physicists feel that QM has been abused. I'll read it over tomorrow and correct, if you don't get to it first.
I think you did not anticipate that your quotations were perfect for a response, because you thought the response would not be essentially in agreement with the crit! I think there is small doubt that QM has sometimes been abused. But I also think that such speculation is part of the legitimate process of science (even when misguided).
I also think there might be a problem in that we really don't have a unbiased source to tell us -indeed there's no source who has the superhuman expertise- just how much QM has been abused within the more scientific part of parapsychology. So just how much outrage to include?
Rikstar, you have no idea how valuable an informed skeptic is to this page. Almost all the skeptics are just trying to insert their a priori beliefs, and don't know the material, either. Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 04:28, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Several points.
1 "Many of the criticisms are about parapsychology being a pseudoscience. In fact most of them are. Most of the responses are that skeptics are biased, which they are".
Parasychology might be a pseudoscience, but that does not mean the its proponents are pseudoscientific in their methodology and analyses. Isaac Newton applied the same strict experimental methodology in his doomed efforts to turn base metals into gold as he did in his optics work. I do seem to keep reading references to biased skeptics and little mention that proponents of psi are biased, as shown in their own responses to skeptics. I couldn't agree more that some skeptics are arrogant (corresponding with Truzzi years ago was a breath of fresh air to me), but arrogance is the hallmark of skeptics' weaker criticisms; let's not forget that proponents of psi have also 'oozed' breathtaking arrogance (I can give examples), and I'm willing to ignore it IF we can give the skeptics a break too.
2 "The only people who should have a better understanding of physics is physicists".
Agreed, which was why I included critical quotes specifically from physicists (one removed). I don't want this to turn into a forum thread either, but I am wary of the fact that this is happening possibly because of the trend in this article to finish every point raised with a (invariably much longer) pro-psi response, however weak or unresolved that maybe. Or the criticism or context of it gets changed to achieve the same result. We need to pare things down to the strongest, simplest arguments possible and leave it at that, and I assume there is no reason why this shouldn't leave a skeptic having the final say in some cases. Simply saying: "Skeptics think it's bunk. Believers think it's valid" is basically reasonable, but why is the wording that way round? Expanding on this succinct conclusion, just a bit, is proving very frustrating for me, especially given the positive contributions I feel I could make. Which is why I am grateful for:
3 "I feel as if maybe I should ask you both to not give up" and "Rikstar, you have no idea how valuable an informed skeptic is to this page".
Thank you. My approach to this article is thus: it should stand as an 'uncritizable' article whether psi exists or not. My view at the moment is, if psi anomalies are not truly paranormal, the article looks a little too much in psi's favour.
I would like to point out that my unchecked childhood wonder and interest in all things paranormal was finally given some order by studying the history and philosophy of science. And I then realised that psi was the only genuine thing worth investigating. But I am still mindful that today's sincere, dedicated psi researchers might be 'doing an Isaac Newton'.
I may be back - I think I'll have to ponder upon my future involvement in this article, and I have my other commitments. Respect. Rikstar62.136.147.171 12:17, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
I didn't see anything above that I disagree with. I still say (half-jokingly) that it can all be summed up with "Skeptics think it's bunk. Believers think it's valid." : ) Parapsychology, for all its best intentions, has become not about the data, but about all the various philosophies surrounding the data. This is just a personal observation, but I think the true legacy of parapsychology is not whatever data has been demonstrated, but really how it brings to the forefront ideas about what science is and what science isn't. The data is there purely without conclusions. The conclusions, however, is what parapsychology is all about, for skeptics and believers alike. But unfortunately, that isn't science. That's philosophy. The pure data (which I maintain is completely valid and derived through completely valid methodology) is the smallest part of what parapsychology is today. The much larger part deals not with data but belief structures.--~Nealparr~ (Talk|Contribs) 19:39, 30 December 2006 (UTC)


"We needed to pare things down to the strongest, simplest arguments possible and leave it at that" Agreed. If it's biased, that might be for 2 reasons. First, I think the job of the article is mainly to present the scientific consensus of scientists in the field, not the scientific consensus overall, which doesn't exist since most scientists don't know nothin' bout it. Second, Rikstar, you have no idea the ignorant skepticism on there, that wants to push its point. That's why you're so valuable. Not only have the skeptical claims been easy to counter, they often have been POV, and so deleted (as on the Telepathy page).
Also, responses are generally longer than crits, because a positive argument usually naturally requires more detail than a doubt.Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 20:28, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
"I think the job of the article is mainly to present the scientific consensus of scientists in the field".
This makes me wonder how much reasonable skeptical content you think is permissible, given the possibility that parapsychologists may be 'working' with non-existent phenomena (wouldn't any 'outside' criticism be, or appear to be a token gesture?). I cannot help but think that if all controversial paranormal articles were written on this basis, wikipedia would offer no more insight into the fundamental philosophical issues that the paranormal inevitably raises than the tedious and biased populist media. And readers would be forced to look elsewhere to learn about basic, but important and fundamentally related philosophical issues - if they could be bothered.
"responses are generally longer than crits, because a positive argument usually naturally requires more detail than a doubt". Well..., for example, the article contains the paragraph:

"Skeptics have responded to criticism by saying, in the words of Carl Sagan, that "…extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence".[35] Parapsychologists riposte that they have attained levels of proof which are more than sufficient to prove their results in any other field of science.[5]

Sagan's quote is a classic opportunity to usefully expand in the main text a reasonable crit, of the type of skepticism enshrined in the philosophy of science and scientific method - not the knee-jerk, bone-headed variety. And the riposte could stay the same length that it is currently. Believe me, I am well aware of ignorant and arrogant skeptics, and the havoc they try to wreak, but I've met far more people whose will to believe in the mysterious is matched only by their inability to think critically. The impolite responses I have had in merely trying to add a little much needed skepticism to other articles are breathtaking.
Just a thought, but perhaps a link should automatically exist in all wikiparanormal articles to one which deals with the philosophical issues of science specifically in relation to why science is generally skeptical of paranormal claims. It might be useful, but I don't think it is an ideal solution.
I think the trick with all articles on controversial paranormal subjects is to reduce to a minimum how stupid a 'believer' who writes such articles would look if it was shown that the mystery was just a load of bull. Likewise, skeptical contributors (to UFO articles for example) need to minimise how dumb they would look if, say, a flying saucer landed on the White House lawn. Rikstar 18:14, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] State of the controversy

I've added historical/philosophical refs I think the article needs - about scientific revolutions.Rikstar 01:32, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Needed context

I'm removing the following paragraph to here:

Renowned statistician and conjuror Persi Diaconis, an observer in many parapsychological studies, observed that (in cases like that of alleged psychic Bill Delmore at Harvard in 1972):

"Even if there had not been subject cheating, [these experiments] would be useless because they were out of control. The confusing and erratic experimental conditions I have described are typical of every(emphasis in the original) test of paranormal phenomena I have witnessed."[2][3]

The reason is that this is a very broad generalization, which, even with the parenthesis, seems to cover nearly the entire field of parapsychology. It needs to be made about a particular experiment or run of experiments, either in a particular lab or setting, or concerning a set of experiments which all had the same bad structure, and which were not corrected and re-run with better controls. There is not enough detail to allow the reader to check it out. Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 22:18, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


I am having a bit of a problem with that movement, I think it has been Diaconic intention to imply the whole field; ie this was meant as a general disqualification of the field. Not mentioning it would (IMHO) achieve two things: Introducing a pro-parapsy bias in the article (which is against wiki npov policy). Second it would strengthen the imporession that parapsychology cannot cope with criticism. The option could be to acknowledge this as a serious critique; to provide (published) evidence that the field has imporved since these findings, or to provide (published) counterevidence of the claims by Diaconis (note that one of the publications is in Science, so the level of such counterevidence should be published in a very high level journal). Arnoutf 22:41, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


Well, I'm not sure I even understand what you said, especially the first 2 sentences. However, it's impossible to provide counterevidence if there's no specifics as to what the claim against parapsychological studies includes. So, it's a serious critique, but who knows of what. I suspect (though without details I of course cannot know) that it shouldn't be included because it would require more room than is appropriate in this article in terms of readability.
You say that "Introducing a pro-parapsy bias in the article (which is against wiki npov policy)"
However, this is an article about the scientific field of parapsychology. Wikipedia articles follow the Scientific consensus of scientists in a particular field, see this. Thus, it is a mis-interpretation of policy, I believe, to say that articles dealing with subjects studied in parapsychology need to give equal time to skepticism. Also, they do not need to act as if, within the field, there is no bias toward believing the research results of parapsychology. This is so even if the skeptics are correct. Of course, skepticism should be covered, as a matter of thoroughness, either in this article or in a separate, linked one. In fact, because there is so much controversy (mostly between people outside the field with people inside it), criticism should be given more coverage in parapsychological topics. But the skeptics need not be given equal time, nor is there any reason to avoid a bias which is pro-acceptance-of-parapsychological-research-results, as long as we are merely presenting the scientific consensus in the field in an NPOV manner. Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 01:46, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


P.S. As for not being able to cope with critique, I believe that you didn't read the entire article, which would have included the section on Criticism and response. Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 02:06, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Your point that the main part of the article should not be about the critics is well taken. Perhaps we should keep the generic critisisms on this page (ie of the Diaconis type) and make a separate article listing the more detailed arguments of critics. One problem I have with the criticism and response section is that there seems an answer to all critisism. Most sciences are by now mature enough to acknowledge that certain weaknesses exist, or that future research has to fill these gaps, or that it falls outside the boundaries of the field; here however every critique is countered; that in itself sheds doubt on the pov; I am sure there is justified critique and that should be acknowledged. Arnoutf 08:02, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


Yes, a separate article. That is what I plan to do with the criticism and response section. As you'll see, though, as with the crit on wrongly using quantum theory, the criticism is basically acknowledged as correct by the response. These are as yet only the most common crits, and I plan to expand them soon with some from Hyman which have more merit (such as that parapsychology has no case if it doesn't have a theory, and others). Though, there will be responses. Let the readers judge whether the responses are sufficient. Some of the crits are valid, and they are -or will be- acknowledged.
But the Diaconis crit was still not valuable, simply because the reader couldn't know exactly what he was talking about. It would only have been good as a quote to dramatize a sentence like "Critics, however, say that parapsychology has no merit." Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 21:02, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Unsourced addition to summary

Arnoutf, I don't think you realized quite how controversial the recent additions to the summary were. Even if you have good refs from a parapsychological peer-reviewed, or other authoritative, source and a good skeptical source, is the summary really the place to discuss the reasons? (You stated it as fact, not opinion; even as opinion, it's too much.) Also, you need a source for saying the research is "state-of-the-art." This is sometimes true, but if you say it some skeptic is going to come along and qualify or remove it anyway. And the research can't all be that good. Why not discuss this kind of thing in the section made specially for it, having merely stated in the summary that there are differences of opinion? Also see response above. Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 20:51, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually I only moved the sentence from the first line; and you have to agree the critics say this (true or not), but I see that it is better placed in the critisism section then in the intor summary (where critics are quoted who are actually stating this). Arnoutf 21:08, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
From the first line? I went back and I don't understand, but I'll take your word for it. Yes, your right that of course the critics say it.Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 22:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Recent Edit

Kazuba, you're usually better than that. You edited the following:

Although parapsychology has its roots in earlier research, it began using the experimental approach in the 1930s under the direction of J. B. Rhine (1895 – 1980).[4] Rhine popularized the now famous methodology of using card-guessing and dice-rolling experiments in a laboratory in an attempt to find a statistical validation of extra-sensory perception.[4]

To include:

Rhine's sensational results have never been duplicated, nor has anyone produced reliable evidence that a psychic can rotate a delicately balancred pin under a bell jar. Rhine repeatedly tried, but with failures he never reported. [5]

The word "sensational" was POV. The reference to pins and bell jars was apropos of nothing. And the unduplicated "results" are unspecified. And, more important, this edit is simply a smear if it is not accompanied by a very great deal of context, to make it clear exactly what is being challenged. It looks to me like it needs its own article, perhaps "History of the Rhine Research Center", or to be included in the article "Fraud in parapsychology."

Also, it might be better to edit the main "History of parapsychology" article, where there might be enough room for nuance so that you could include these assertions, of course in a less POV manner, or as an opinion.

You edited a link in a way which made it cease to work:

You changed {{main| Research results in parapsychology}}

to

{{main| Contemporary research results in parapsychology}}

Please confine skepticism to specific statements, not general ones (an exception would be if you are, say, giving an example of skeptical rhetoric), and give sufficient context so that the reader can judge the content for himself. If at all possible put skepticism not in the general text of the article (which reflects the scientific consensus in the field of parapsychology, not the "truth," general consensus, or skeptical consensus), but in the "Criticism and response" section. Wikipedia articles follow the Scientific consensus of scientists in a particular field, see this.

You have many good ideas and sources, and I'm sure we can work together to improve the article. It's just that the article has grown up a bit since you last looked in (: Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 06:16, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


P.S. Your other quote:

Noted rationalist Martin Gardner writes: "I am all in favor of parapsychologists continuing their efforts. Perhaps one day parapsychologists will devise an experiment that can be regularly repeated by skeptics, though I suspect that hundreds of years from now their claims will be in the same limbo they are now." [6]

Should perhaps be included in the section on Criticism and response, perhaps as part of a criticism that says the "experimenter effect" is fishy. That would make it more specific, and it would also put in in a context where it belongs. It isn't very informative about the "state of the controversy," But rather seems a specific criticism.

[edit] Errors in Parapsychology

I can give many more sources than these. But these are a good starting point and specific to PSI. People become very anxious when they begin to think their picture of reality may be distorted. To find comfort it is common for one to change beliefs rather than to keep suffering discomfort and anxiety. People prefer to be happy and content. User:Kazuba 6 JAN 2006

I have no doubt of that and generally would agree.
However, the sentence says "Also a critical review of the past history of this science plainly reveals parapsychologists who prefer to remain popular within their own circle, academia, the press, the general public and financial supporters do not want to appear incorrect or 'rock the boat' by being 'whistle blowers.'"
Without a source, I can imagine some readers (myself included) wondering: What critical review revealed "plainly" that in "this science" (as opposed to other sciences) there were parapsychologists (which ones?) that avoided "rocking the boat" by being "whistle blowers" because they wanted "to remain popular". The sentence as it is written says that there were some parapsychologists who suppressed information to remain popular and that a critical review plainly revealed this. I can imagine that even skeptics might want to refer to that critical review to support their argument and that believers might want to critique the review.
My placing the fact tag is a totally neutral effort to flush out the sentence. If there is such a critical review, I'd like readers to have the opportunity to take a look at it. If there isn't a review out there, it might be considered original research, or an assumption that such a review exists. In any case, such a sentence would need a source because it makes statements that (as worded) come from an external review.--~Nealparr~ (Talk|Contribs) 02:21, 7 January 2007 (UTC)


Kazuba, you seem to be editing in the wrong place. I would suggest that you edit the "Fraud in parapsychology" page instead, see the LINK to the main article in the "Fraud" section (you changed it, and so the link no longer worked, which is why it turned red). The "Fraud" page is where cases of fraud go. If you want to start a page called "Criticism of parapsychology," so you can put in all the errors that parapsychology has, do that. Because the article is called "Criticism of parapsychology," you won't have to worry about NPOV, because you will be presenting the POV of skeptics. This section you've be editing is not about "Error," but fraud. "Errors" go in the criticism and response section, and they must be specific enough that they can be answered, in principle, even if no one has an answer. This section on "Fraud" is only a preview of the main page. It should be kept short.
This article presents the POV of the scientific consensus within the field of parapsychology, with criticism thrown in for context, not for balance.Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 02:31, 7 January 2007 (UTC)


[edit] See what people think of this proposal

I think it's too much to try to balance the article by giving equal time to skepticism and parapsychology. I think also, however, that skepticism/criticism must be covered. So I think that rather than mixing skepticism into the article skepticism, fraud, and Criticism and Response should each have their own articles, with only previews in this article (as with the "Fraud in parapsychology" article). We need to separate out the topics, or we will just get a mishmash.

This also answers Rikstar's concerns, above. I'm not too worried how people feel if parapsychology turns out to be bunk. I just want to present, in an NPOV manner, each needed POV. But not in the same place. Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 02:41, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

If divided into sub articles, wouldn't each of them be non-NPOV (I prefer not to use the abbreviation POV because points of view are fine as long as they are neutral), or at least slanted towards one point of view over another? I think, and this is just my opinion, that the problem with the article is that it seems to sneak opinions in through the back door by presenting them as quotes, rather than being a strictly fact-based article.
For example:
Fact - There is a field called parapsychology.
Fact - Parapsychology attempts to study psi through experiments.
Fact - Parapsychology is often criticized.
Opinion - John Smith thinks parapsychology is scientific.
Opinion - Jane Doe thinks parapsychology is psuedoscience.
Opinion - John Smith thinks Jane Doe is narrow-minded.
Opinion - Jane Doe doesn't think John Smith did his homework.
(could go on forever)
Although it may be fact that John and Jane said those things, it is really just sneaking in personal opinion through quotes and just represents how people feel about parapsychology instead of covering the nuts and bolts. Even if these people are experts in the field, it's still just opinions and I think all the quoted opinions are what adds to the bulk.--~Nealparr~ (Talk|Contribs) 03:07, 7 January 2007 (UTC)


Can we have a "fact based" overview of parapsychology? If we were to present the "facts" as seen from the POV of parapsychologists, we would have two problems: first, there is too much difference of opinion within the field. Second, I think it is just too much to ask of people on Wikipedia to allow us to present parapsychology as "fact" rather than opinion. So the first thing is that parapsychology is a protoscience, and the second is just what we can do here. So the sneaking weaseling quotes are just that. They're the POVs of eminent scientists in the field, and eminent critics. And, we may need the quotes because then no one can say it's original research (merely another fact of Wikipedia). The quotes could be paired down, though, as long as no one is going to come along and ruin things without them. I think they're interesting.
On the other hand, maybe you're right to just do nuts and bolts in the main article, and then do the POVs in the other articles. So, there would be a main article on the Status of the field.
I think you're wrong to say that POV are fine as long as they are neutral. I think rather they are fine as long as they are presented merely as POVs.
I'm not sure I know what you mean by "sneaking opinions in by the back door," but the whole article should present the opinions of representatives of the field, if it gets into "facts" beyond the kind you mentioned. The only place it should be really NPOV is in the Status of the field section/article, where we mustn't judge between the rightness of the sides. I think they should each be represented well, that is, equally according to the opinions of each side. But the problem is that we need to establish that this is not the place to discuss specific things or make general accusations except as an example of a viewpoint; we only present there what people feel or have said, or the politics. We also need to be NPOV in the summaries of exterior articles.
I feel we should look over the Evolution article, and follow its example, except in these ways:

1) We can't present the facts as clearly, because it's a protoscience. We can only present opinion from good sources in the field. 2) We have to give more time to controversy (since there is more, and it's more justified).

I propose immediately creating a stub article titled "The skeptical view of parapsychology," and linking it to the main page. Let the skeptics make the very best case! This is as it should be. The Parapsychology article itself, and the articles which deal specifically with parapsychological things such as the ganzfeld, should be presented from the view of scientists in the field of parapsychology. And the pages such as "Fraud" are also NPOV, that is to say, they would neutrally present the evidence of fraud. And the articles like The skeptical view of parapsychology would be the POV of skeptics, that is to say, NPOV within the field of skepticism (just as the parapsychology article should be NPOV within the field of parapsychology). The article on Criticism and response would be NPOV, in that it doesn't weasel and presents both sides equally.Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 01:03, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Status of the Field

I have added a reference to an "eminent scientist" who felt the Parapsychology Association should be reviewed as a member of the AAAS. I feel it is valid and necessary. As for the reasons given for moving the reference and quote pertaining to Persi Diaconis, I can only express my disapproval, but I am weary of explaining why. It seems some contributors are going to steer this article their own way, whatever others say. I do not mind the inevitable ups and downs of the editing process, but I'm gonna see how this article develops without my input.Rikstar 15:06, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Rikstar, that is a good paragraph. Why would anyone take it out? It's specific, sourced, adds to the dialogue. It's NPOV in context. Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 01:11, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rebuttal?

I separated the Criticism and Response section into two because the second paragraph is worded in such a way as to make it sound argumentative. If anyone can improve it to be more encyclopedic and less "So there!" in tone, it would greatly improve the article. (I'm not familiar enough with the subject to do so myself.) -- Noclevername 01:21, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, yes, the tone does seem a little so-there, on both sides, but especially the parapsychology side. But, it's a so-there kind of debate, to tell the truth, so it's an accurate representation. I chose that as an introduction to the main article. I like your edits, all except the heading. Perhaps you could be more specific about what should be changed? Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 03:23, 4 February 2007 (UTC)