Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Paranormal/Archives0

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Reporting on the paranormal

These comments are originally from the main page, I moved them here on the request of others - I still think they are highly relevant (and controversial, I know).

I think an important part of such a project is to establish consensus on how to report on supernatural phenomenon. How do the relevant articles currently look with regards to this and what wikipedia guidelines are relevant. I believe that phenomenon that go against our current understanding of the universe should be reported as "some believe/report" and that all (or some typical) evidence for and against should be written up with a note on why the scientific community does not believe the phenomenon - these matters are what I wanted to open a discussion on, I hope you find it important too. In the spirit of honesty, I would like to ask the participants about their views on the paranormal and how they plan to/believe one should report on it. Lundse 15:37, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Lundse - I am skeptic, I have heard of no peer-reviewed nor reproducable experiments on paranormal phenomenon. On the contrary, there is still over 1,000,000$ up for anyone who can show any psychic, occult or otherwordly effects - no takers. I believe articles on the paranormal should be neutral, telling accurately what adherents believe and why - and why mainstream science (ie. applied common sense) does not buy into the phenomenon. Attempts to prove such phenomena should be reported, along with any methodological problems with these proofs.

Aside from that, reporting of paranormal phenominon should not be done anywhere on wikipedia, as any information posted here must have verifiable sources. And, as above, we must be neutral on any subjects presented, by simply writing about what we can verify (and any verifiably held positions) as we have it. --InShaneee 19:35, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Quick Question

I do have a question, about Apport. Could it possibly be related to the experiences seen in twins, such as transmitted feeling (where one twin feels something, and the other does as well, even if miles away)? Other than that, I'll see what I can find on the subject. ThirdEye 19:46, 21 March 2006

Howdy. I'm super excited to be a part of a WikiProject on just an exciting topic. Kudos on getting this setup! One thing is stuck in my mind, however. How do we choose to differ between religious and supernatural? ProfMoriarty 00:04, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

You tell the difference by searching for any religious person or thing in the artice, then read that sentance or paragraph to see if it sounds supernatural or religious. ~VNinja~ 19:12, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Is "supernatural" the best term? No, "paranormal" is.

Note: My original title was Is "supernatural" the best term?. Someone else added the rest. Fuzzypeg 16:44, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

In relation to occultism, witchcraft and magic, it is common for occultists to avoid using the word supernatural, since in many schools of thought magic is considered to be a part of nature, rather than some separate force (apart from nature). This is from philosophies that hold that everything is ultimately one, and there is no creator-creation duality. If the concept of God is considered, for instance, we are part of God, and God can also be termed the universe or nature, etc.

Thus "supernatural" tends to imply "fictitious", since a thing cannot be "beyond" or "outside of" nature. Instead other words are employed, like "paranormal" (note this term is used to disambiguate a few articles). This doesn't imply that miraculous things don't happen, but it does conveniently imply that the cause of these things may be within our sphere of influence.

I know this is just the name of a project, and in itself should cause no problems, but I want to make sure some care is taken with how terminology is allowed to creep into articles. Fuzzypeg 16:28, 24 March 2006 (UTC)


Albert Einstein: I believe in God, but I call God by the term "nature". StarHeart 22:42, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
There's a big difference between what is nature and what "scientists" are currently capable of explaining. Once upon a time, to state that "the world is round" would have been a "supernatural" claim. StarHeart 22:42, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
You bring an interesting point. However, if I understand correctly, "supernatural" implies "separate from nature." I would presume this meant "nature as defined by science." If we recognize, as an encyclopedia that delivers unbiased and neutral information, that seperate from the definitions of science, an institution that definetly does not associate with the supernatural, does not equal invalid, I think we are okay. ProfMoriarty 18:01, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
1. Supernatural literally means "beyond natural". 2. I would guess that the word "nature" is not precisely defined within any branch of science. That's the kind of definition that would be more likely (and more useful) within philosophy or metaphysics. 3. Occultists generally take the simplest approach and define nature as "everything", unless they believe in a transcendent deity – see my further comments below. The point remains that the term "supernatural" rankles with a lot of mystics and occultists because it implies fictitiousness. Fuzzypeg 16:44, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Once the latest research tools allows the "scientists" to EXPLAIN observed phenomena, then that phenomena is no longer referred to as being "occult" or "paranormal" or "supernatural". Maybe there would be less confusion to use the term "paranormal". StarHeart 22:42, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I agreee that paranormal is the better term. Supernatural has connotations of "miracles", ie. things out of the order of the universe (which is really a nonsensical notion), and it implies that the universe has something "outside" it which can affect it (which is too POV, in my mind, and it is at odds with how many adherents of these beliefs view matters). Lundse 01:33, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
The concept that the universe has something 'outside' of it which can affect it (normally God) is termed transcendence. It's actually quite common (most Christian churches follow this model), and provides an explanation of reality that allows miracles but also has laws of nature that don't allow miracles. This philosophical standpoint is not so helpful though, when it comes to actually interacting with this transcendent reality (God, whatever). Without going into a huge theological exegesis, suffice it to say that this philosophy is much less common amongst occultists. Fuzzypeg 16:44, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
I know. I am an idealist myself, but still have huge problems with the notion (it either collapses to dualism or just plain collapses, IMHO). I would have thought a lot of occultists accepted it though, but then again, it does seem that holism (and hence moism) is the thing right now (which, oddly, aligns current science with current occultism...) I do think that most sciences (if not all) adhere to a (physical) monism, meaning that they define "nature" as "everything" (regarding your comment on it not being defined) Lundse 13:45, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Although I realize we'd have to make a statement limiting the scope of the project, I do believe that 'paranormal' is a more proper term. --InShaneee 01:30, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Scope of Wikiproject Supernatural

What is the scope of this project? How many ideas are you attempting to bring together? Are you interested in bringing things like Angels and Demons (mentioned elsewhere in the discussion page), Legendary Creatures, Ghosts, supernatural phenomenon, hauntings, ESP, telekinesis, etc? Or is it more focused on paranormal activity, or "real" experiences had by individuals? Exodio 04:12, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm curious about that as well (and don't want to start tagging pages as 'project' pages until I'm sure). Anyone want to discuss? --InShaneee 18:52, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Challenges

  • Healing abilities of Joel Goldsmith verified by his many clients in Philadelphia? StarHeart 10:11, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Healing abilities of Olga Worrall documented by research @ UCLA? StarHeart 10:11, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  • How was Emmanuel Swedenborg able to "see" the fire in Stockholm while he was in Gotesborg? StarHeart 22:53, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
  • From his dreams, how did Abraham Lincoln know that he would soon be killed? StarHeart 22:53, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Why did Baha'u'llah, founder of the Baha'i Faith, cancel his trip on the passengership Lusitania? StarHeart 22:53, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Why did Bridey Murphy speak a foreign language when she was in a fever, but she never studied that language during her current incarnation prior to getting sick? StarHeart 22:54, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
Swedenborg - I don't know, maybe the reporting back then was a bit lax (even Kant, who wanted very much to believe these things had to accede that two of three "supernatural incidents" he investigated were nothing but tales). Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, this is a bit old and un-cited...
Lincoln - How is this remarkable? He was hated by about half the nation and had been the target of many assasination plots, so he dreamed about it. He even said himself he did not believe the dream was about himself being assasinated.
Baha'u'llah - He cancelled a ticket, so what?
Murphy - was an Irishwoman whom "Virginia Tighe" thought or at least claimed she channeled from old Ireland, in fact, she was a childhood neighbour. See [[1]].
I am getting a bit concerned about what the goal of this project is, reporting these beliefs or rehearsing them.... And what is the point of this section? It sounds suspiciously like you are trying to prove that some paranormal phenomenon are "real"; I would like to ask the participants about their view on the paranormal and how they plan to report on it. Lundse 16:04, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Lundse - I am skeptic, I have heard of no peer-reviewed nor reproducable experiments on paranormal phenomenon. On the contrary, there is still over 1,000,000$ up for anyone who can show any psychic, occult or otherwordly effects - no takers. I believe articles on the paranormal should be neutral, telling accurately what adherents believe and why - and why mainstream science (ie. applied common sense) does not buy into the phenomenon. Attempts to prove such phenomena should be reported, along with any methodological problems with these proofs.

That's a lie. The "Amazing Randi" is a fraud. If you bother to listen to him or read him closely, you'll learn that Randi has NO intention of allowing ANY objective third party to monitor any "research" that Randi pretends to conduct to validate anyone's claim regarding the paranormal. (I doubt that Randi even has $100K in the bank for any reason.) You're NOT a sceptic, you're a debunker. As the Amazing Randi, you have no intention of permitting honest inquiry. Leave us alone and get a life. StarHeart 22:05, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I know you do not want to face up to the fact about Randi, but until you actually check out the legal documents and try checking the ways in which one can actually ascertain that the money is there, please don't call anyone a liar. There are ways to check whether Randi is lying, and noone has ever shown such evidence (they have just, like you, called him a liar). And he does not conduct research nor has he ever claimed to do so - his errand is another. I am all for honest enquiry, but I may not agree with you on what that enquiry shows or how it should be conducted. Please stop resorting to name-calling like "get a life". I will watch this project, and I would still like to know how you (and others) want to report on the paranormal. Lundse 13:24, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
I moved my "wish to see discussion into a section on itself, see above. Lundse 15:37, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

If you bothered to actually study the issue, you would know that it's NOT about Randi having the $$ or not, it's about the fact that Randi has NO intention of having ANY 3rd party to monitor ANY experiment regarding the paranormal. He wants to COMPLETELY control and monitor ANY experiment. What science credentials does Randi have? StarHeart 05:36, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Further reading

Enemies of the Roman Order: Treason, Unrest, and Alienation by Ramsay MacMullen, Harvard University Press, 1966, A classic study the supernatural within the ancient Roman empire

[edit] Moved here from NEWS! on project page

The challenges I listed were a good place to start being material for this topic. But apparently, some waste of space (a gremlin?) has self-assigned their meaningless self to sabotage our efforts and deleted my contributions. I assume it's their way of fabricating potent into their life. StarHeart 02:19, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Are you talkin' about me? I didn't do nothing to you! ~VNinja~ 16:18, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comments

Why did you delete my comment? I am trying to help this project, having gotten involved with the astrology articles lately - I realize you may not agree with me, but that should be a reason to address our differences, not censor me out of the project. I would still very much like to know the opinions of other people involved, with regards to how paranormal phenomenon should be reported. Lundse 07:55, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Because your comments are NOT contributions. You're a debunker, not a sceptic. You're sabotaging the efforts of those with integrity who HAVE studied the topics of Astrology and the Paranormal. It's obvious your sole source of reference is the devious "Amazing Randi." Why don't you get a life and stick to the topics you actually have studied. News flash: not all opinions are facts, not even yours. Knowledge are opinions based upon experience. You have yet to reveal having ANY experience regarding Astrology or the Paranormal. There's more to life than books. The best books are based on EXPERIENCE. If you ever left your library you might learn that. StarHeart 05:34, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

The only reason I deleted your comment was 'cause I posted new news, and since your comment came with the old news, it goes with the old news, so basicly, every time I post new news, I delete all the other comments. ~VNinja~ 16:33, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merge Projects

I noticed that your Wikiproject has not gained much publicity and I wonder if you would like to merge my Wikiproject with yours? Wikipedia: Wikiproject Paranormal Mahogany-wanna chat?

That sounds like a pretty good idea, if you ask me. It's an extrememly similar project, and one that already has a userbase. --InShaneee 15:37, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
O.k. someone start asking the users if they want to switch projects it shouldn't be too hard Mahogany-wanna chat?
I've contacted all members I could see in participant section Mahogany-wanna chat?

Heh, always thinking that I'll agree to your merge proposal, well, lucky for you, I do! So let's start discussing on how to do this. ~VNinja~ 03:22, 21 April 2006 (UTC) u

Well I can merge yours into mine and then we can still use your templates, we can use your collabaration of the week. If you don't mind I will begin now. Mahogany-wanna chat?

Good idea, but let's vote on a new name so it an be a whole new wikiproject, not just two similar ones sharing one name, I think Wikipedia: Wikiproject unknown would be a good new name. ~VNinja~ 15:38, 21 April 2006 (UTC)