Talk:Dermo-optical perception

Categories

Removed "paranormal" and "pseudoscience" tags. They are NPOV. Not fair to actual scientists who study aspects of a similar phenomenon with the same name. The RANDI institute cannot and should not define things in wiki to serve their agenda, however helpful that agenda is sometimes. First edit, might not be very pretty. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gourmande (talk • contribs)

I have restored those categories, as they are justified by the article's sources. I have also removed speculative, uncited information per WP:V. --Dynaflow babble 03:42, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I have expanded on why it's considered paranormal and pseudoscience. --Enric Naval (talk) 11:32, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Not pseudoscience

Dermo-optical perception is not pseudoscience since it is not considered as pseudoscience by mainstream scientifical community. Only some skeptical sources (like RANDI) consider Dermo-optical perception as pseudoscience, according to NeutralPOV only some skeptical sources can't define contents on wikipedia. Dermo-optical perception isn't included in the list of topics characterized as pseudoscience. Actually mainstream scientists are studying this phenomenon and have positive results like Larner (2006) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16887762 and Brugger et Weiss (2008) http://www.zora.uzh.ch/9087/1/Brugger_Weiss_J_History_of_the_NSCci_17_2008-1_V.pdf. Formulation like "baseless paranormal claims" are absolutely not neutral and outdated if we look at the source (1996). I will remove claims of pseudoscience if nobody else have arguments.Thundergodz (talk) 01:22, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Your account seems to have a history of vandalism so I am probably wasting my time commenting to you. But you are completely wrong. Firstly the Peter Brugger 2008 paper is already cited on the article. How did you miss this? Brugger is a skeptic, he does not believe dermo-optical perception has anything to do with paranormal claims - he is talking about something different. As the article reads "While it has not been verified if fingers can be sensitive enough to detect heat radiation from different inks in paper, it is theorized that blind people could plausibly do it." But this has not been independently confirmed. As Brugger says further research is needed on the topic. You also claimed that Larner 2006 produced "positive results" well this is not true, Larner was discussing an old case from the seventeenth century! Note that his paper was published in the Journal of the History of the Neurosciences. He was discussing an alleged historical case. Goblin Face (talk) 08:40, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Your other claim that "Only some skeptical sources (like RANDI) consider Dermo-optical perception as pseudoscience" is also wrong as the paranormal psychic claims of dermo-optical perception are definitely pseudoscientific. What else could they be? If you cut out all the fraud nothing is left apart from some unverified claims from non-replicated experiments. Barry Beyerstein is sourced on the article for this and there is no reliable scientific evidence for dermo-optical perception (see Leonard Zusne (1989). Anomalistic Psychology: A Study of Magical Thinking) which is already sourced on the article as are other reliable sources that explain this. In short - Wikipedia goes by what the reliable sources say, not your paranormal beliefs Thundergodz. If you have reliable sources feel free to add them but it's obvious from other paranormal articles on Wikipedia you have vandalized that you don't have any. Goblin Face (talk) 08:49, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

This article should be split in what's real (perception of light) and what's alleged (perception of images). Or rather write two new articles, this is a mess. 2001:4644:13BE:0:63CB:CB06:D74:6FDC (talk) 20:46, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

As far as I can see, it is already split: It says what is alleged. What is real is in other articles. Which part of the article do think is real? --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:10, 16 July 2024 (UTC)