Talk:Parapsychology/archive6

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Harvard Referencing

There is some discussion going on at User talk:Annalisa Ventola/Sandbox about eventually switching the referencing system for this article from footnoting (WP:FOOT) to Harvard referencing (WP:HARV). If you care either way about which system we use, you are welcome to come over and discuss it with us. --Annalisa Ventola (Talk | Contribs) 02:35, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Skeptics opinion re science and reason

I've re-removed the suggestion that 'skeptics' (who? how many?) fear psi because it will undermine science and reason, ie they're afraid it might be true. The reference provided is obviously inadequate, as its ultimate source is the Noetics Institute, an pretty dodgy-looking organisation. This is just a strawman; instead of relying on what the Noetics Institute thinks, how about a source from one of these 'psi is dangerous' people? The second sourced statement is a non-sequitur that just serves to provide misleading support to the 'psi is dangerous' strawman.--Nydas(Talk) 20:58, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any such suggestion- there is no mention of "skeptics." I could give you quotes- for instance, Arthur C. Clark (sp?) -a notable skeptic- said he didn't believe in it because he thought it was creepy that someone could read his mind.
The passage now includes parapsychologists, so it is entirly NPOV.Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 21:44, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
It says specifically "Skeptics wonder if this would undermine science and reason", 'referenced' by a FAQ entry, of all things, from the Parapsychological association, taken from the Noetics Institute, an organisation with an obvious religious and political agenda. The Arthur C Clarke quote seems to orginate from there as well, there's no independent confirmation of it. I detest overuse of quotes anyway, they're almost always used to advance a specific POV. This article should have most of its quotations removed.--Nydas(Talk) 07:08, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Just as you say. The article, as the template on it might suggest, is in the process of being re-written. Why don't you wait and see what you think of the new version? I mean, anything we do now is just going to get un-done. Anyway, this article is about parapsychology. That means we work from inside the field, and that means that sources inside the field are good. So it is well sourced for this article. Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 07:15, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't believe that there is a license to promote strawman arguments like this. FAQ entries derived from an agenda-pushing organisation like the Noetic Institute are not reliable sources, period. Your 'sources inside the field' notion appears to be an idiosyncratic policy of your own invention, not based on any wider Wikipedia policy.--Nydas(Talk) 09:09, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, first- we could take it out. The article is being re-done anyway. The "sources inside the field" thing is a very important principle on Wikipedia. See this for more. Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 03:14, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for confirming that the 'sources inside the field' notion is a policy of your own invention with no community support. I've removed the section, with no prejudice against recreation it if suitable sources can be found; i.e. sources from the sceptics themselves. If they say X, it should be possible to find examples of them saying X, not just relying on what their opponents say about them.--Nydas(Talk) 06:36, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


Nydas- it would be much better if you were to stop making non-consensual edits to the parapsychology page. If you had read my links, and the links in my essay, you would have noticed that I am merely repeating Wikipedia policy. I made nothing up. If you had read further, you would have noticed the quotation from the scientific consensus page:

"Scientific consensus is the collective judgment, position, and opinion of the community of scientists in a particular field of science at a particular time. Scientific consensus is not, by itself, a scientific argument, and is not part of the scientific method; however, the content of the consensus may itself be based on both scientific arguments and the scientific method." (emphasis added)

Which is later paired with this from the WP:RS examples page

"Honesty and the policies of neutrality and No original research demand that we present the prevailing "scientific consensus". Polling a group of experts in the field wouldn't be practical for many editors but fortunately there is an easier way. The scientific consensus can be found in recent, authoritative review articles or textbooks and some forms of monographs."

If you want examples of the scientific consensus in parapsychology, I could easily get you these. I think, however, that the PA website is fine for this. But general policy aside, you are correct that it is not very well sourced from the skeptic side- that is, the parapsychological side has a good paper as a source, but it would be much better to have a skeptical source. I believe I could find one, but it is not an important passage, and since the article is in transition, I may not bother.

Thus, I am not making up policy, in any way, shape or form. Please take a little more time to consider the positions of others. I may be wrong, but it felt as if you are being abrupt and dismissive. Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 19:37, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

The PA website will tell you the consensus of parapsychologists, but it's a poor source for the consensus of scientists in general, which is what WP policy says we should present. I also agree with Nydas's assessment that it's a strawman argument, if the article is going to describe the skeptical position, the source should be a skeptic, not what proponents claim that skeptics believe (unless you want to phrase it, "according to PA, skeptics believe..."). --Minderbinder 20:13, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
This is complete policy nonsense. A botanist is not qualified to comment on quantum physics, and neither is a botanist qualified to comment on parapsychology. Further, this is not the policy of Wikipedia. Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 20:20, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
That's not what I'm saying. A scientific consensus means accepted by scientists in general, which would be shown by things like publication in mainstream, general, scientific journals as opposed to only in fringe journals. And I don't see why you're linking to an essay you wrote when policy is what matters. And policy doesn't support your notion that scientific consensus is defined as only the opinions of a niche group. Where exactly do you think it says that?
Beyond that, I'm not sure how a faq from proponents is a justifiable source for the opinion of critics, particularly when it just makes generalizations and doesn't cite any actual critics. It absolutely is a strawman argument. Not to mention that there were claims in the secton Nydas removed that didn't even seem to be mentioned in the sources. --Minderbinder 20:45, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
I just said where policy says that. Please read what I said, and read the pages in question. Especially see the two quotes above. I am linking to my essay, because it discusses policy. Please read the essay also, if you want further discussion of similar matters.
Re your second paragraph- I also already addressed this, and agreed that it could have better sources. If you are going to comment, please read the discussion which has gone before, if you don't mind. Thanks. (Please also respond on the John Edward talk page, and provide sources there.) Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 21:32, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
I find it abrupt and dismissive to tell me not to make 'non-consensual' edits and point to a filtered, self-created version of policy, rather than the real thing. Also, my repeated pointing out that the main 'source' here originates from the Noetic Institute has been ignored. They are not a reliable organisation, period. Even if the PA has reprinted some of their claims on its website, that does not in any way validate them, despite what your essay says. Focusing on one sentence fragment in a minimally sourced mainspace article and claiming it as policy is just a way to slant articles by restricting views to self-declared parapsychologists. A botanist may not be qualified to comment on quantum physics, but professional conjurers, psychologists, philosophers of science, physicists, etc are certainly qualified to comment on parapsychology. Finally, I do think that this is important, as the paragraph suggested that sceptics towards the paranormal are motivated by what is essentially irrational bigotry. That is a quite a serious claim, and needs serious sourcing, not dodgy FAQ entries.--Nydas(Talk) 21:48, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Category

To those who keep putting this article in the pseudoscience category: please submit a WP:V source for this, something which trumps the AAAS, Alcock, Hyman, and Randi. Otherwise, this cannot be called pseudoscience, no matter how much anyone here would like to do so. It can, however, according to those sources, be called a science; revert-warring over this is not right, as our own personal opinions are not at issue. Whether we personally think parapsychology is a science is WP:OR. I can ask for mediation over this if you wish, but why bother? The sources are too good in this matter. Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 07:18, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Randi thinks it's a science? AAAS affiliation for the PA, doesn't necessary make it's subject matter "science". Psychology doesn't need to have the category "science". Why does Parapsychology need it other than as blatant OR? The use of pseudoscience seems to be in conjuntion with the general 'rubbery' nature of the subject inasmuch as it may be explored in a scientific matter but it will viewed non-scientifically until key mechanisms underpinning the theoretical explanation(s). Mind you, this is science 101 and shouldn't need to be explained. Shot info 07:42, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
O found it, I see the article has misquoted Randi in thinking that he supports it as a science, prehaps it needs to be read through its conclusion where it says "What Professor Stanovich is asking of us, is to not tarnish the psychologists with the peccadillos of the parapsychologists; these are two very different sciences. The former has a rich list of confirming and supportive experiments, the latter has none except for the popular miracle-of-the-moment. In the same breath, I'll assure my readers that there are indeed responsible and capable parapsychologists; those are the ones who have no positive work to report... ". It's an example of Randi's sarcastic wit [[1]]. Shot info 07:48, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
According to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience#Obvious pseudoscience it is not wrong to categorize a subject as pseudoscience if it is obvious pseudoscience (which parapsychology obviously is). --ScienceApologist 08:12, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
I've read the same guide, and I would say that parapsychology would fall under the category of 'questionable science' much like psychoanalysis. Unlike astrology (described as a 'generally considered pseudoscience'), there are roughly a dozen university labs that have active research programs incorporating parapsychology, there at least as many mainstream publications that have published the results from such labs, and then there is the AAAS affiliation (which for some reason, you guys like to deny). This is not 'obvious pseudoscience', as you would say, obvious pseudosciences or even generally considered pseudosciences could not possibly maintain as many academic ties. --Annalisa Ventola (Talk | Contribs) 16:56, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Shot info, Randi is on record as saying parapsychology is a scientific field. You found the wrong Randi quote. The proper one is used in the article. Look at the citation there.

Martin, I did look at the link, found it, read it and read beyond the "sound bite" used to foster an (in)correct opinion onto Randi. The quote is factual, but if you keep reading, about two paragraphs beyond it you end up with Randi's conclusion I quoted above where he in effect says "Yep, science, but a different science from what everybody else calls science". So it is disengenous to believe (or infer) that this sarcasm = an endorsement. Shot info 22:10, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Shot info, there is nothing wrong with the quote, and it does not mis-represent Randi's position. Randi thinks Parapsychology is different because he thinks it doesn't have any results. But he nevertheless says it is science. Different, and I'm sure inferior in his view, but science. That's all the quote is saying in the article. It is a fair quote, because it includes his view that parapsychology has no results to report. Yet, at the same time, Randi considers parapsychology a scientific field and that is what we are talking about. He refers to parapsychology as a scientific field, both in the quote in the article and in the quote you are talking about: "What Professor Stanovich is asking of us, is to not tarnish the psychologists with the peccadillos of the parapsychologists; these are two very different sciences. The former has a rich list of confirming and supportive experiments, the latter has none except for the popular miracle-of-the-moment. In the same breath, I'll assure my readers that there are indeed responsible and capable parapsychologists; those are the ones who have no positive work to report." (emphasis added) So he says it is science twice there. That's two fair quotes I could have used in the article. I sum up- Randi believes parapsychology to be a scientific field, with no positive results to report. Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 22:39, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
You don't really recognise Randi's sarcasm which is dripping from the quote. Randi is calling parapsychology a science unlike science. ie/ Not a science. Again, it is disenguous to suggest that Randi believes paraphyscology is a science, or rather a science that has results and doesn't rely on miracles. I guess I will just have to mine JREF for a clarification of Randi's position as you are clearly taking his quotes waaaaaay out of context. Shot info 22:48, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, it isn't like that is all I looked at. I also looked at the forum. Here is what I found (and I read it a few weeks ago, so it may have changed). As you see, they are taking it the same way I did, Randi, as far as I see, is not correcting them. That is, they are debating, and mostly agreeing with Randi, that parapsychology is a field of science. So, I suspect that, as with the other critics of parapsychology, Randi does indeed recognize it as a science, because it follows the method, even though he thinks it doesn't have results. The forum is very good proof, at least, that Randi's readers took it at face value. I know Randi's sarcasm. I grew up on Flim-Flam!- I can remember laughing so hard! Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 03:08, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
We are starting to get into pointless semantics here. The overall scientific community does not regard it as a science although they will perform research on it. Out of interest JREF has this to say about parapsychology [[2]]. Not exactly a ringing endorsement regardless of the each way bet that will be used (ie/ "Among all the sciences") but before that is done, an examination of what JREF calls "science" is needed [[3]] (ie/ JREF don't believe it is "magic" although there are a range of "sciences" that have). Nevertheless we are straying from the discussion of the article somewhat. Shot info 05:16, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Ok. I know JREF doesn't think much of parapsychology. My only contention is that Randi does call it a science, and according to your link he has a pretty conventional definition of science- as a process of knowledge gathering. So I think we are in agreement that Randi did actually call it a science, and he meant it. He meant it according to his definition as stated in your link.
I do want to say, though, that the issue of the what the "overall scientific community" thinks is not really relevant. That's because one scientist just doesn't have the knowledge to speak outside his/her field. That is why Wikipedia goes with the scientific consensus in the field, and not with the overall scientific consensus (and there are few areas where one can even cite such a thing). Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 05:55, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Parapsychology, unlike psychology, is nearer to a hard science than psychology, as it deals more with matters of physics than psychology (the name is misleading). Parapsychology does not necessarily have to be in the category science, as far as I care; but it shouldn't be in the pseudoscience category, unless you can source it in a way which trumps sources to the contrary. General rubbery natures, whatever that means (= ummmmmmmmmmmmm I dunno what that has to do with the category. The analysis and scientific methodological rigor of parapsychology are very high- so rubbery could at best be applied to the results.

The "obviousness" of whether parapsychology is a pseudoscience is only OR- you need sources for that, as per Annalisa. The ruling said that the threshold for "obvious" pseudoscience was Time Cube. That is extremely important, and we must follow it here. Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 20:10, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:ATT"This page in a nutshell: All material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source." We need to see the sources for calling it pseudoscience. We already have sources which call it science, and a scientific field- and they are the best kind, critics of the field and the AAAS. We need to see the WP:V sources that trump the sources given. Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 20:41, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

The ArbCom decission on pseudoscience says that:

"Questionable science

17) Theories which have a substantial following, such as psychoanalysis, but which some critics allege to be pseudoscience, may contain information to that effect, but generally should not be so characterized." Emphasis added. And parapsychology, because it uses quantification much more, is much more "scientific" than psychoanalysis. The current article follows this standard. Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 20:46, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Because no sources have been provided for calling parapsychology pseudoscience, I have removed the page from the pseudoscience category, and put it in the science category, per sources mentioned in the article in in the discussion above. Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 21:42, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Martin, here is a source [[4]]. There is enough critism out there about the subject matter to have the "psuedo" part of the science valid. There is enough V and RS in article space (in fact the controversial tag gives a solid hint) to show it's disputed status as a "science" enough to qualify per the info discussed above (see WP:CAT). Shot info 00:42, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't really have a problem with categories. The real problem here is that categories are used by editors as labels for the subject, not as ways to help readers link. Since Cats are used as labels, I don't want it to be in the pseudoscience Cat if it is not also in the science Cat. There are sources of great validity which put it in the science Cat. Would you compromise and have it in both Cats? Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 00:57, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm inclined to leave it out of both, just following the example of psychology. I doubt that categories are used "by editors as labels for the subject" (WP:AGF), rather I think you will find that a large majority of the WP community (probably reflecting the overall community at large) regard Parapsychology as a junk science. Since it is not the role of WP to defend parapsychology (WP:SOAP) it is better to leave it out of both at the moment. Mind you, this doesn't excuse what Parapsychologists "believe" in from not being pseudoscience. Shot info 23:29, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree to leave it out of both Cats. Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 23:47, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


I very much doubt that Theories which have a substantial following applies to Parapsychology, even and especially when compared with psychoanalysis. --Pjacobi 21:03, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sandbox version

Is the version in progress in a user sandbox open for all to edit or will it be proposed here when those working on it think it is ready, seeing if there's a consensus to switch over at that point? I'm just wondering because it hasn't had much mention on this talk page. --Minderbinder 12:35, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll be posting a notice here when it's closer to being done. --Annalisa Ventola (Talk | Contribs) 15:53, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Status"

I find the "Status" section rather bad. I won't re-revert my change, also because the current wording is bit better. But even taking Parapsychology is an interdisciplinary field, attracting psychologists, physicists, engineers, and biologists, as well as those from other sciences.[15][16] -- Heck what does this sentence tell us about the status? It's meaningless or even misleading. --Pjacobi 20:05, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Depends on how broad or narrow your interpretation of "status" is. Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 20:09, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Bah! Don't play games. You know what I mean. The actual number of psychologists, physicists, engineers, and biologists attracted to parapsychology can be used -- if at all -- only to testify a "low" or "mostly ignored" status on parapsychology. Also counting support from scientists working in a totally different field is fallacy, an appeal to authority. You surely must know the most prominnet cases. --Pjacobi 20:15, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree with you that the Status section needs work. However, the number of PA members does not testify that the status is "low" or "mostly ignored", just that like most specializations within psychology, it's a pretty small field. There are no degrees awarded in parapsychology. Rather, most people who do such research first earn their degree in a mainstream field (like psychology, biology, anthropology, or physics), and then do parapsychological research either on the side, or as a career if they are lucky enough to find a job that allows them to do it full time. This is not an appeal to authority. It is simply sketch of how research is currently undertaken in this field. --Annalisa Ventola (Talk | Contribs) 20:58, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Being nasty won't help matters. I didn't know what you meant- it seemed you were talking about status in the narrow sense of how it is seen by others. And I don't see what you are saying, as the number of members of the PA is given. Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 21:34, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


Hi Martin, I fear a lot must be said about this and I'm low on time right now. Perhaps an example. To make the status -- in multiple meanings of the word -- of parapsychology as a scientific discipline clear, what about summariuing this statement from the organisation's website itself:

People often believe that there are active undergraduate or graduate-level programs at universities known for having parapsychology labs. Unfortunately, this is not true. At present the only university in the United States with an endowed professorship in consciousness studies - in this case specifically meaning parapsychology - is the Bigelow Chair of Consciousness Studies at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, and this was established in 1997. Classes will eventually be taught under the auspices of this Chair, but development of an academic program leading to an accredited degree, will take several years, if ever.

Also the current list of institutes in the article looks rather heterogenous and misleading to me.

Pjacobi 13:13, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Pjacobi, Yes, that could be a good place to start. There is a lot more to the institutional status of parapsychology than that. I'll look into it, but- as the tag at the top says, this article is being revised. Why not come back and look over the new version when we get more mature? I mean, anything we argue over now is going to be replaced anyway. So why bother? Let it go for a while, as long as nothing is technicall wrong.
"Also the current list of institutes in the article looks rather heterogenous and misleading to me." I don't know what you mean by this... Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 20:24, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
In the current state it simply tries to get the message "many institutes" across. And without givung where the instutes are based, they can't even be easily identified. E.g. just saying Cognitive Sciences Laboratory. Re Heterogenous: Instutes of a well established university are rather different from initiatives like Boundary Institute
Re new version: I'll have a look at if you care the give the link.
I'm deleting the Nobel laureates stuff. Personal belief by Nobel laureates is just an argument by authority and would only be good enough for a "trivia". Also the article has way to many quotes.
Pjacobi 21:10, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, good riddance to that stuff. Anyway, the new article is in a sandbox here, but is by invitation only at the present stage (see above).
Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 21:29, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Pjacobi, be bold and edit away. If other editors disagree a revert can be made. If you feel a section needs rewriting, go for it. I think you will find that editors here are pretty understanding and helpful. Shot info 23:56, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the status subheading is largely ambiguous, or rather written from an American perspective, which makes its notability to a world audience rather non-notable. After all, surely there are other organisations around the world other than PA, that are perhaps larger? And the notability of AAAS is appropriate for PA, from an American POV. Since WP is meant for the "world" audience, perhaps the sandbox version (or this version even) should have a more international flavor made to it? Since it is has been the subject of a couple of reverts, I haven't attempted to make any changes. Comments? Shot info 00:01, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that the sandbox version does in fact have a much more international perspective. You are right in what you say- it is just the best we have right now, and the PA status is notable. I think these reverts on the Cat should not take place. It is disputed science, but it does not fit the criteria for such a Cat- because the cat doesn't have any subtlety. It should be under a Cat Disputed science. Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 03:12, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Personally I don't agree with it's cat, but until we have a clear consensus I guess the overall community takes precedence. Mind you, I disagree with your use of "disputed science". This is just a nice way to say "pseudo science". Technically all science is disputed one way or the other, but only science that can prove itself and be reproducible pulls itself out of the pseudo (the disputed if you like) zone. I really cannot comment on the PA, but I'm commenting that it's affiliation with the AAAS is not really notable from an international perspective. I haven't really edited too much as I'm waiting on the sandbox version (which you will have noticed that I have stayed away from). Shot info 03:17, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
It shouldn't be in pseudo. If Randi, Alcock and Hyman don't call it pseudoscience, it doesn't belong in the Cat. And it does fall under the ArbCom decision in the heading of Questionable science. I don't know if you know the debate about whether psychoanalysis is a pseudoscience, but there is one. Parapsychology is more fringe, but uses quantification and experiments much more like a hard science- which I would think balances out. Psychoanalysis shouldn't be in pseudo, but should be in Disputed- that is the need for a new Cat. Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 03:26, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Not even psychoanalysis enjoys the the academic ties that parapsychology does. The matter of which science is more 'hard', I think is irrelevant here. --Annalisa Ventola (Talk | Contribs) 05:09, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Disagree with "disputed" as articulated here and elsewhere. Shot info 03:28, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
It's like having only two options: love and hate. Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 03:42, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Rather like "love" and "everything else" :-) Shot info 03:50, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Yeah. You're kinda funny :D Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 03:59, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Category straw poll

Does this article belong in Category:Pseudoscience?

Comment: What I mean by a small minority is that the vast majority of critics question the results or the methodology of parapsychology, viewing it as a flawed or useless science. Few would call it outright pseudoscience. --Nealparr (yell at me|for what i've done) 21:39, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
  • No -- As per the Arbitration Committee's guidelines, parapsychology should be considered a questionable science and thus should not be characterized as a pseudoscience. Like psychoanalysis, parapsychology has a substantial following and affiliations among other scientific societies. Unlike astrology (generally considered a pseudoscience), the study of parapsychology employs the facilities of university labs and has received positive attention in mainstream, peer-reviewed journals. --Annalisa Ventola (Talk | Contribs) 22:22, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
If someone could produce the positive attention in mainstream, peer-reviewed journals, it would help your case substantially. Also, the ArbCom doesn't actually deal with parapsychology per se, so it's not so clear cut that parapsychology should be considered a "questionable science" on Wikipedia. Antelan talk 03:55, 27 April 2007

(UTC)

Will this do?
  • Bosch, H., Steinkamp, F., & Boller, E. (2006). Examining psychokinesis: The interaction of human intention with random number generators � a meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin 132(4), July. pp. 497-523.
  • Cardeña, E., Lynn, S. J., & Krippner, S. (Eds.) (2000). Varieties of anomalous experience: Examining the scientific evidence. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
  • Jahn, R. G., & Dunne, B. J. (1986). On the quantum mechanics of consciousness, with application to anomalous phenomena. Foundations of Physics 16(8), August. pp. 721-772.
I'd be happy to produce more refrences for you. --Annalisa Ventola (Talk | Contribs) 16:15, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  • No We include things based on sources, guidelines, and other rules such as NPOV. We do not include or exclude things based on the opinions of editors. There are a lot of excellent sources, such as the major skeptics and the AAAS- which say parapsychology is a science. The relevant ruling is the the ArbCom on pseudoscience, which specifically says that things such as parapsychology are not to be included in the Category pseudoscience. Even things such as psychoanalysis are not to be included, and parapsychology is much nearer to being a science than is psychoanalysis. Including Parapsychology in the pseudoscience Cat is against the rules. Thus, votes are not relevant to inclusion or exclusion, although if they were I would of course vote to adhere to the rules, and also to abide by common sense relative to the sources. Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 22:55, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Comment: There's very few black and white rules at Wikipedia, just guidelines. Here the guideline suggests to err on the side of neutrality. If there's a reasonable question of whether it is pseudoscientific, you err on the side of neutrality and avoid outright calling it pseudoscience. Here there are a number of notable sources saying parapsychology isn't pseudoscience. If Wikipedia were to call it pseudoscience, Wikipedia would be saying that all those sources are wrong. Get how that's not exactly a neutral stance? Neutrally speaking, we can't take the hardline stance of definitively calling it pseudoscience, especially when that's in disagreement outside of Wikipedia.
--Nealparr (yell at me|for what i've done) 23:21, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Um... isn't that what I said? And isn't that what the ArbCom said? Right, of course. Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 23:24, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Almost : ) Except that you were saying that the rules say it has to be that way. I'm saying the guidelines *suggest* that. --Nealparr (yell at me|for what i've done) 23:31, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I see. And the sources. Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 23:59, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Arbcom didn't "specifically say that things such as parapsychology are not to be included in the Category pseudoscience". It specifically said that things such as psychoanalysis are not to be included in the Category pseudoscience. Whether parapsychology falls into the same category as psychoanalysis is an editorial call and what we need to reach consensus on. We have rules and arbcom decisions to guide us, but since they don't spell out everything, we're forced to interpret them. I do find it a bit funny that calling it "flawed" or "useless" science is being used as an argument to defend it and say it's not pseudoscience (and yeah, I know the two aren't the same thing). --Minderbinder 14:17, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Bemused yes. Hold on a minute. You're taking an arbcom decision stating psychoanalysis is not pseudoscience, and using it to justify parapscyhology? Now I know Freud is criticised, and psychoanalysis can't be considered "good" science because it can't really be disproved (according to Freud, if it isn't there, it's just being hidden further: clever, eh?), but it's still a serious discipline. I don't know about the US, but I'm currently working in France, where the 2nd and 3rd years of a psychology degree are more or less entirely dedicated to studying Freud's theories and those of his opponents as well as his later followers, such as Lacan. Can we say the same of the paranormal? Do physics students study paranormal phenomena? In the introduction of Pseudoscience, we have: "a large part of gaining scientific literacy is being able to distinguish science from pseudo-science such as astrology, quackery, the occult, and superstition" . Definition of "the occult": "knowledge of the paranormal". yandman 08:39, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
I didn't realize that there's still so much misunderstanding about parapsychology. Parapsychology doesn't study astrology, quackery, the occult, or superstition, and only studies specific paranormal topics. The section on the scope of parapsychology in this article is accurate. Notice it doesn't mention any of those things in it. It doesn't have anything to do with psychoanalysis, but it doesn't have anything to do with those things either. The definition of occult isn't even "knowledge of the paranormal". The word paranormal came long after the word occult did. You can read its etymology over in the occult article but it's basically about esoteric knowledge, not anything paranormal.
Minderbinder, me saying that the majority of skeptics say it's a flawed or a useless science isn't a defense of parapsychology, though I totally agree it's funny I'm using it as a defense against calling it pseudoscience : ) But at least you agree that they're two separate things.
I'll even throw the skeptics a bone. The number one reason that some skeptics take the next step and call it pseudoscience is that it's hard to falsify parapsychological experiments. The logical counterexample of abnormalities would be normalities. Since it's redundant to test for what is already considered normal, proponents of falsifiability consider the whole field flawed and useless. Those who believe falsifiability should be a requirement of the scientific method would consider experiments that can't provide a viable logical counterexample to actually be pseudoscience.
So there you have it. That's how it could be pseudoscience. The problem with that is that not everyone agrees that falsifiability should be a requirement in science. In fact, there's whole groups of science philosophers who have criticisms against it (you can read those on the falsifiability page). A great deal of what we consider to be knowledge derived from science came without falsifiability.
So there's no obvious pseudoscience here, so why deviate from the guidelines?
According to the guidelines we err on the side of neutrality. In other words, even if we are making a mistake, we seek the more neutral.
--Nealparr (yell at me|for what i've done) 11:20, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment:
    • I don't see the substantial following here, so the ArbCom decision holds no guideline here.
    • IMHO Parapsychology is an interesting case, where there exists a notable but very small reseach effort which follows the criteria of science. But even there several caveats apply:
      • (a) It's really small.
      • (b) Its best days are already over.
      • (c) Not a few researcher produced bad science, even -- assuming good faith -- unintentionally. E.g. Hans Bender.
      • (d) Subtracting the c-cases, the research results so far are rather unconvincing.
    • But the small group of serious researches is totally dwarfed by all sort of cranks and kooks, whose effosts are bona fide pseudosciend.
Pjacobi 00:32, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
That's an interesting point, that there may be fewer parapsychologists than psychoanalysts. If the ArbCom does not apply, then we are left with the sources, which clearly put it in science. One cannot call something pseudoscience because it attracts cranks. Else evolution is pseudoscience. Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 00:43, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Comment:
A) Substantial is a relative term. I used to have the numbers on me, but they're available at most local libraries. Go look in the Encyclopedia of Associations by Gale-Thompson. There, they list all of the various parapsychology associations and how many members they have. When you add them up, it's pretty substantial when compared to other niche sciences like, say, Egyptology, for example. Don't be confused by the Parapsychological Association's 200 something listed. To be a full-fledged member there (not just an associate member), you are required to have a doctorate among other requirements. The other parapsychology organizations have far more members. These are undergrads pursuing the subject, sometimes from a hard-science experimental approach, sometimes from a soft-science survery, etc. approach. What they don't do is plot astrological charts.
B) True unless something extraordinary happens in the future.
C) Some researchers produced bad science certainly, but when compared to the overall number of researchers, and considering the increased scrutiny, it's (I'm willing to say) comparable to bigger sciences like environmental research where scientists often fudge the numbers for political reasons.
D) True, but it's the field being called a pseudoscience which is a separate matter from the results. Result based criticism would be "failed science" versus "pseudo-science".
--Nealparr (yell at me|for what i've done) 01:32, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Addressing Pjacobi:
If you don't see a substantial following, then I have to wonder where you are looking. As Neal pointed out, the PA has very stringent membership requirements. Members are generally expected to have PhD, to have published research in peer-reviewed journals, and be nominated by three other members. If you look at the membership lists for any of these research centers or organizations you would see a lot more numbers.
A)The size of a science has nothing to do with whether it's a 'true' science or a 'false' science.
B)Whether or not we are in the golden age of parapsychology or lamenting the past has nothing to do with whether it's a true science or a false science.
C)Pseudoscience and bad science are not the same thing. You can be rigorous and methodical and still make mistakes. It happens in every field.
D)NealParr already addressed this adequately.
And yes, there are kooks and cranks who study the paranormal, but this article is not about them.
--Annalisa Ventola (Talk | Contribs) 03:18, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Pls compare the numbers with the ArbCom example of psychoanalysis. Laymen following doesn't count, as then Ufology or Creationism would count under this ArbCom exception rule as well -- but you may ask the ArbCom for clarification. We aren't in the position of bible exegists, the ArbCom members are all pretty much alive and willing to communicate.
Whether the size is good criterium, needs not (but can, if you like) discussed here -- I was simply speaking about the point, whether all is already covered by an ArbCom decision.
Of course there are very small topics with a low number of researchers in mainstream science, and often these are not in best standing within their fields. E.g. active researches in Loop quantum theory may count below 200 and the Feldverein may be below 50 by now -- but there are other criteria, which easily differentiate these case from the case of parapsychology.
Pseudoscience and bad science are not the same thing -- I know, therefore I stressed the point, that I consider Bender's Psi-research to be bad science, not pseudoscience.
Pjacobi 14:39, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

In spite of those who would like to put this whole field and every bit of research in it under the same roof as Time cube, I think that it is the duty of those who want to include this Cat either to source their assertion or to allow the Cat to be taken out. I have not heard any argument which places parapsychology within the "Obvious pseudoscience" criteria. So, when others are ready, we can go to mediation on the subject. So far as I know, there is nothing in the rules which gives this Cat a leg to stand on. Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 04:01, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I assume the source for saying it's pseudoscience would be the russian source cited here List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts. --Minderbinder 14:02, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
That's good enough, for right now, on that page (as far as I am concerned). But this is the parapsychology page, a Cat can't be sourced or attributed (in such a way that the reader can judge for themselves), the threshold for obvious pseudoscience is Time cube, and there are much much better sources saying it is science than saying it is pseudoscience- the russian thing isn't really discussing parapsychology by all appearances- it is focused on general hocus-pocus. Even if it does really mean parapsychology as practiced in the university, it is not sufficient. If that is the best anyone can come up with, it is not good enough. Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 20:43, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes. Wikidudeman (talk) 22:30, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes. Quoting myself from a post I made on ScienceApologist's talk page: Per "generally considered pseudoscience", parapsychology seems to fit very well with pseudoscience. It has a following, but it is not accepted by the scientific community in general. Actually, it's noteworthy that some of the strongest supporters of parapsychology, including the PEAR project at Princeton (listed as a reference on that page) have disbanded.
Put another way: if all of a subject's research is pseudoscience, the subject should be considered pseudoscience. Alchemy is pseudoscience, while nuclear physics is not; the research in alchemy was all pseudoscience, while the research in nuclear physics was traditional science. It may well be that, someday, some branch of science comes along and discovers what parapsychology practitioners were seeking. For now, parapsychology seems to rest pretty firmly in the territory of pseudoscience. Antelan talk 21:56, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
  • No: I have to cast "no" here although I've not edited substantially in parapsychology-related articles. Parapsychology has been studied seriously by numerous college professors. There is no reason to classify it as a pseudoscience. WooyiTalk, Editor review 22:21, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes: Without evidence, and without a disprovable hypothesis examined with an independently repeatable test, parapsychology is simply a belief that purports to be science. Yes, people have studied parapsychology, but no, we (in this or any other discussion) haven't been shown any scientifically valid, peer-reviewed, and accepted evidence to support the claims of parapsychologists. Antelan talk 03:21, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
There's an ArbCom going on currently involving this topic Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Paranormal and whether or not the category is appropriate or how it should be applied (sourcing, etc.).
--Nealparr (yell at me|for what i've done) 07:20, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comment by an uninvolved editor

A lecture I had in a course titled "Pseudoscience in Archaeology" termed pseudoscience as a "system of methods, theories, etc. that presumes without warrant to have a scientific basis or application." It also touched on the following points that are indicative of a pseudoscience:

  • Use of vague, exaggerated or untestable claims
  • Over-reliance on confirmation rather than refutation
  • Lack of openness to testing by other experts
  • Lack of progress
  • Personalization of issues

Concerning parapsychology, I would hope that you guys take what I have learned this year into account when actually thinking about what to do with this page.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 10:29, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

That's an interesting list that you've got there, but if you could be more specific about how each of these points relates to academic parapsychology, then maybe we could have a discussion about it. --Annalisa Ventola (Talk | Contribs) 16:17, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Academic parapsychology appears to be dead in the water, according to Nature anyway. Guy (Help!) 08:00, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
That's not exactly true. After reading the quote you posted in the ArbCom, I looked up the article in Nature. You quoted:
"The status of paranormal research in the United States is now at an all-time low, after a relative surge of interest in the 1970s. Money continues to pour from philanthropic sources to private institutions, but any chance of credibility depends on ties with universities, and only a trickle of research now persists in university labs."
But you left out the very next line, which reads:
"Elsewhere the field is livelier. Britain is a lead player, with privately funded labs at the universities of Edinburgh, Northampton and Liverpool Hope, among others."
It's not the heyday of parapsychology, but that's a little different than dead in the water.
--Nealparr (talk to me) 08:09, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] SSE

It should be noted that the Journal of Scientific Exploration isn't peer reviewed in the sense that other scientific journals are peer reviewed. As such, it's use in the article isn't providing the level of credibility that it's placement suggests. Personally I think it should be removed only as the SSE has published somewhat questionable material and it's scientific credibility is somewhat lacking (say compared to the JoP which at least does perform peer review and rejects outright oddballery IMO). Comments Shot info 06:52, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Could you explain to me what you mean by the JSE not being peer reviewed? I had a study published in there several months ago, and it was reviewed by two of my peers. --Annalisa Ventola (Talk | Contribs) 14:21, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
On their website, they say that "refereeing" happens at the editor's discretion. They also say that they publish some articles even when the referees disagree with the article, sometimes letting them write dissenting statements. So while they have peer review, it doesn't seem to meet the same standards as other journals. --Minderbinder 20:44, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough. I guess in my case, the editors knew how to handle my subject area, since the board of directors contains a good proportion of psychologists. I suppose it is difficult for a journal that brings together all fringe sciences to be equipped to referee all research topics at all times. However, if you pick up a copy of the JSE, you might notice that they also print research studies that do not support unconventional hypotheses, so painting the JSE as a biased source does not present an accurate picture. --Annalisa Ventola (Talk | Contribs) 17:28, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
I guess it isn't that the JSE is "biased" but fails WP:RS in the sense that (say) JAMA does not. Of course if the SSE was a serious organisation, they would have the same checks and balances, but they don't and hence their journal (and others like it) start to have problems here in WP with RS. Shot info 01:09, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
If you look at the board of directors of the SSE, you see a lot of respected universities represented. When you are trying to judge what is a reliable source, you have to ask yourself...reliable for what? Is the JSE a reliable source for gauging the opinion of conventional science on a particular subject? Of course not. But if you are looking for the opinions of specialists in the academic field of parapsychology...it's not bad place to look. And this page is, afterall, an article about parapsychology. --Annalisa Ventola (Talk | Contribs) 02:00, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
You said, "Is the JSE a reliable source for gauging the opinion of conventional science on a particular subject? Of course not." In comparison, let me ask a similar question: is Cell/Science/Nature/Etc. a reliable source for gauging the opinion of conventional science on a particular subject? Yes. These publications evaluate broadly divergent categories of science - science of all kinds - and they present the data that gives rise to the conventional science and the opinions of specialists in the relevant fields. Just because a publication is adequately peer reviewed and broadly focused does not mean it cannot contain the opinions of specialists in any given academic field. And, likewise, just because a publication contains the opinions of specialists does not mean it cannot contain conventionally produced, peer-reviewed science. Finally, just because a publication includes some science that is well-done does not mean that all of its published material has been adequately evaluated. Ultimately, the rationalization so far for the JSE as an adequate resource seems insufficient from my vantage point. Antelan talk 05:23, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Heh, so in fact Annalisa, you agree that yes, JSE does not have the same checks and balances as other RS' but because it supports a POV it should be accepted? Shot info 06:06, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps 'opinions' was too narrow of a term. The editorials, commentaries, and book reviews most certainly contain people's opinions (just like they do in Nature etc.), but the meat of the journal simply presents research. When it comes to the field of parapsychology, the JSE might not be as reliable for this particular article as the Journal of Parapsychology or Journal of the Society for Psychical Research, but its still one of the major journals that publishes research in this field. Shot Info, I'm afraid I might not understand your question. Parapsychology is not a point of view, it is an area of academic specialization loosely organized around a number of research topics, so I'm not really sure what you're asking. --Annalisa Ventola (Talk | Contribs) 19:01, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
The question is pretty straight forward, does JSE meet RS. Answer so far is a general "no" except for your response which I've interpreted in my comment above. However based on Nealparr's comments below, it is largely a mute point until the ArbCom makes a decision. Shot info 08:07, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
To the actual question, of whether or not the JSE is appropriately used in this article, it's almost moot since the article is involved in arbitration and it's being rewritten anyway. Currently it's in two places in this article. One is a list of peer-reviewed journals where parapsychological work is covered. It's appropriate there. That section can have an additional sentence saying something to the effect that it's peer-reviewed among other parapsychologists, or some other statement that shows that it has a small readership, that's fine. A comparison of it's peer-reviewedness compared to larger journals might be appropriate too if it's not really drawn out and off topic. But it is still a fact that is relevant to the article. Whatever criticisms of the journal should be mostly covered in the journal's article. This article isn't really the place to cover that.
The other place it's listed will most likely go through a major revision in the new rewrite and refers to just one article in the journal talking about whether parapsychology is a pseudoscience. That probably has a lot to do with the outcome of the arbitration and will most likely look a lot different whatever the outcome.
--Nealparr (yell at me|for what i've done) 19:24, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Very helpful info - thank you. Antelan talk 16:48, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Invalid Reference

Reference 11 leads to a dead link. Ryz 21:37, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Invalid Reference #11=

Icnvalid reference number eleven anca be replaced by a number HERE that leads to several alinks that can ghe usd for wroth. Smith Jones 02:11, 14 April 2007 (UTC)


[edit] ScienceApologist action and discussion

Removed to here. --ScienceApologist 21:03, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Trying to cover up your actions? J. D. Redding 21:09, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

No, trying to cover up yours. --ScienceApologist 21:11, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
What do I need to cover up? Nothing ... J. D. Redding 21:20, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Paraphysics redirect

Are there any substantive objections for why paraphysics should not redirect here? --ScienceApologist 16:29, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

A mergeto and mergefrom tags should be place on the individual pages before the redirect. This is primarily so community involvement can be sought. This request is fishy, as comments by 08:02, 10 May 2007 ScienceApologist (with comment "you've got to be kidding me") are done to provea point. J. D. Redding
At this point I'd recommend a merge if not a delete. It may be a candidate for AfD. --Minderbinder 21:13, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Imagine trying to cut short discussion. RotfL. Both of those options seems POV'ed and suggested to prove a point .. too funny. J. D. Redding 21:19, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
What exactly are you trying to say? AfD generally encourages discussion and stays open for at least five days. I'd just like to get input from a number of editors to build consensus on this. --Minderbinder 21:32, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Not really ... AfD generally discourages discussion from various editors ... and it's open a releatively short time .... and is just another attempt to get rid of information, JIMO ...
Regardless, that is not a proper venue for "correcting", and I use that term loosely here, the article's status ... it can be merged or kept on it's own ...
I am not totally against moving the information ... I am just not for unilaterally disreguarding the edits of other contributors and the loss of information in that article ....
... (as put in the talk of that page) the topic is notable .. it is even mentioned in a CSICOP publication (not that I hold that org in high regard, mostly pseudoskeptics) ... J. D. Redding 21:43, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merge of paraphysics article into this one

Starting a section since I don't see one to discuss the idea. I'd support merging it here and streamlining it quite a bit, paraphysics just seems to be a subsection of parapsychology, and not a particularly notable one. --Minderbinder 21:35, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

It seems like a reasonable start, since the article does not appear to fit the criteria for having a page in its own right. Like you suggested, it would make sense to pare down the content considerably when moving it here. Antelan talk 22:44, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
How does it not appear to fit the criteria for having a page in its own right? it is notable, see Talk:Paraphysics#Notablitity?
Please try to keep most of the information if a merge is arrived at the end of the week. J. D. Redding 22:54, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
The page is buttressed by very few reputable, non-POV-pushing sources that satisfy WP:RS. It may merit mention here, but given the problems with the citations referenced in the article, it also seems to have issues with meeting the notability guidelines for having its own page. Importantly, WP:Notability invokes WP:RS in defining which sources might make a subject notable, and this page certainly raises a WP:REDFLAG. At any rate, much of the page is dedicated to defining paraphysics, which would in theory make it a good candidate to be deleted and moved to Wiktionary. Despite these problems with the article, I am supporting its merger with this article so long as it can be pared down to a more appropriate size (which seems to be about a paragraph or so) and appropriately referenced. Antelan talk 23:06, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Parapsychics does have some significant overlap with parapsychology, but it is a pretty distinct area. Parapsychologists tend to use the methods of psychology and other behavior sciences, paraphysicists use the methods of physics and engineering. If you want to make this merge, you might to get some advice from Wikipedia:WikiProject Physics since they like to keep on eye on the page. Personally, I'd rather it be left alone. I rather not see the Parapsychology article become a junk category for para-everything. --Annalisa Ventola (Talk | Contribs) 15:35, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Can you name a notable "paraphysicist" that distinguishes himself/herself from parapsychology as you did? --ScienceApologist 15:45, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Yourdictionary.com

In this world teeming with dictionaries, why are we settling for one without credibility? Why not use the OED or M-W? Antelan talk 13:42, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

OED
  • Def: The field of study that deals with paranormal phenomena in psychology.
M-W
  • Def: a field of study concerned with the investigation of evidence for paranormal psychological phenomena (as telepathy, clairvoyance, and psychokinesis)

Both of these definitions are superior to the one currently in place, and come from superior sources. Antelan talk 13:44, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to put it this way, but the reason that one was chosen was because it used the words "inexplicable by science"- thus putting parapsychology outside science, and supporting the POV of the editors. I attributed it so at least people would know. Later I changed it to a better dictionary, which of course doesn't say what the editors in question wanted... Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 05:12, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
ALthough it is interesting to note that "inexplicable by science" is not actually true. It is an unsupported claim. Candy 09:03, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merge Controversy in parapsychology

Agree. to merge Controversy in parapsychology here. Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 00:49, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Psychokinesis Page

I would like to ask editors here to take a look at the Psychokinesis page. It doesn't seem to have received nearly as much critical attention as it deserved, and seems to be somewhat heavily biased in favor of psychokinesis (I would guess it is as this one would have been if left only to favorable editors). There was some effort to show that "skeptcism" exists, but it's done in an extremely light manner ("Not all scientists and members of the scientific media accept reports of psychokinesis as being genuine phenomena"). It makes it seem like the scientific community is divided in half, really. There is also an overuse of quotes, like here, and a veritable flood of references, like here, from similar sources.

I'm afraid my interest in the subject, while not non-existent, does not justify for me the effort it would take to get involved in articles like these. This seemed like an appropriate place to ask for the attention of people already involved. AoS1014 11:48, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

To those interested, see the Psychokinesis talk page under the heading "Bias" for further discussion on this. 5Q5 14:47, 23 May 2007 (UTC)