Talk:Joseph Banks Rhine/Archive 1

Archive 1

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 22:50, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

The claim that Rhine believed in the mediumship of Mina Crandon is false

In a 1927 issue of the Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology (21) he and his wife wrote a article discussing a sitting they had with her. They concluded it was fraudulent from start to finish. He claimed he saw her "kicking the megaphone within her reach". In fact, the reason Rhine left the ASPR was because of support Mina Crandon received which he felt was unwarranted. He did not rejoin it until the year Mina Crandon died. Also, the link to the info about Lady the Horse takes you to a page with other links to supposed news articles from the time, which, while they mention Duke University and research conducted with Lady, do not mention J.B. Rhine. The one mention of J.B. Rhine is in the link to something written by Frank Edwards. I'm assuming it's a excerpt from a book called Stranger Than Science. Is such a attribution considered credible for a Wikipedia article? If it is, shouldn't the link go directly to the Frank Edwards page on that site since his is the only article mentioning J.B. Rhine. Anyway, all it says is, "Dr. J. B. Rhine, the famed Duke University specialist in extrasensory perception, spent about two weeks studying and testing Lady Wonder. He and his assistants came away convinced, so they reported, that she had some sort of genuine telepathic powers." Nowhere does Frank Edwards source how he came to this conclusion. Also, I do not see where Rhine said he felt Lady was the "greatest thing since radio". Where is that quote coming from? Finally, with the exception of a book by D. Scott Rogo every single item listed under "reference", "literature", and "further reading" is something not only skeptical about the work of Dr. Rhine but also completely dismissive of the type of research he did. Shouldn't there be some balance brought to this article? It reads more like a hit piece than a encylopedic article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.37.74.18 (talk) 05:58, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

-I added the title for Rhine's first book with William McDougall for further reading. I am a skeptic of the existence of psi myself, but you're right, the reference section does need to be a bit more balanced in this case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.68.73.101 (talk) 04:36, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

This article is awful

Rhine is notable, deletion is not the fix for this problem, but this article is plagued with problems from stem to stern. I suggest that the best solution is a complete tear-down and re-boot of the article.Simonm223 (talk) 13:50, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. The article is not programmatically written, bearing, e.g., nothing of the development of Rhine's research program, the historical development and contributions of his research. It is not, however, possible to build a responsible article on such a topic on WP as there are too many editors who destroy reliable information in preference to a pseudo-skeptical agenda. --Rodgarton 02:31, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually I meant the opposite. There is alltogether too much credulous acceptance that this botanist's pet project was some sort of science when it was just another guise of archaic superstition.Simonm223 (talk) 13:31, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

The spray of hyperbole, personal opinion shouted out as self-evident truth, trivialization, ad hominem slights, etc., that the above respondent achieves in just a sentence amply prove the point I made and to which s/he responds.--Rodgarton 00:27, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Again I refer you to WP:CIVIL, if you continue to make personal attacks against me I will take the issue forward.Simonm223 (talk) 15:15, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm... I'm not enthusiastic about making changes in this article although I think it could be written better. Subject is notable. WP:SOFIXIT comes to mind...--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:33, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry that the respondent considers my summary description of her/his statements as a "personal attack." Let me note the obvious: I have described the respondent's statement, not the respondent her/himself. I will elaborate on some elementary points: (1) To dub Rhine as "this botanist" trashes the fact that he was, for most of his professional career, a professor of psychology (whose Ph.D. was in plant physiology); (2) To describe his research program as a "pet project" is simply a trivialisation, ignoring its widespread discussion and replication efforts across departments of psychology, among other research sites; (3) What is described as a veil for "archaic superstition" fails to appreciate the essential rationalism of Rhine's research program, by which it achieved more discussion and research effort than prior efforts at "psychical research." It is sad, but quite informative, that a commentator who offers ad hominem slights, trivializations, etc., as a basis for providing information on WP, can not respond to the identification of such flaws and deficiencies in her/his argument apart from taking the reactionary emotive stance of "personal attack." I welcome an exchange on the facts; but rhetorical tricks, especially those of the bubble-and-squeak kind, are not worthy of our attention, and delay the improvement of the information under consideration. --Rodgarton 10:06, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

How, precisely is a person with a PhD in Plant Physiology a professor of Psychology?Simonm223 (talk) 14:13, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Rhine studied psychology (and philosophy) in his pre-Ph.D. work. His post-doctoral work was under the leading psychologist of the time, William McDougall, with whom he also collaborated in experimental research. He was thereafter offered a lectureship, and then a professorship, in psychology at Duke University. --Rodgarton 14:30, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

He lectured in parapsychology, not psychology. Do you have references for pre-doctoral work in actual psychology? Simonm223 (talk) 14:34, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Rhine was a professor in psychology at Duke University for most of his professional career. See, for example, the references to the historians of science, Mauskopf and McVaugh, in the target article, or the Biographical Dictionary of Parapsychology, or the obituaries, e.g., American Journal of Psychology, 94, 649-653. In the latter article (authored by a respected historian of psychology, and a former Dean at my own university) it is offered that "Rhine remained in the psychology department at Duke, becoming an instructor in 1928, assistant professor in 1929, associate professor in 1935, and full professor in 1937. In these positions, he undertook to turn himself from a plant physiologist into a psychologist. He taught courses in 'regular' psychology until 1948, and he joined the A.P.A. (as an associate) in 1940." --Rodgarton 14:50, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Well then this information could go in the article since there is a proper reference for it but the fact that his PhD is in plant physiology making him trained as a botanist must also be in the article.Simonm223 (talk) 14:59, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Culling of replication information

Give an accessible source of information giving the articles you want to include as being justifications of his work, or the whole paragraph's out. You have shown yourself to abuse sources, as such, we cannot trust you when you're quoting obscure back-issues of a journal created by the subject himself that you claim duplicate his work. The Parapsychological Assosciatn puts only a few recent years online. If you expect us to trust you, either provide us with some secondary source that says the articles you claim are replications are replications of the work he was criticised for, or e-mail us links or scans of the articles you propose to use. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 206 FCs served} 10:34, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

We must thank the above commentator for a summary of her/his approach to editing this and related articles: her edits depend upon advertising her opinion of a prior contribution of mine, to the article on Parapsychology. Naturally, and reasonably, we can not be satisfied by such ad hominem, indirect and fundamentally irrational arguments. May we, I beg the commentator, focus on the substantive content of the information she wishes to cull? I have provided a secondary source in addition to primary sources. The commentator also makes the odd argument that the web-availability of a reference is a marker of its reliability. How strange. Wherever a book is cited on WP, is its web-availability to be the marker of its cite-worthiness? We await substantive and rational criticisms that merit a closer and more detailed response. --Rodgarton 11:16, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

The culler of this information has next offered, again only in Edit Summary, and ignoring the protocol of discussion, to cull yet again the information with the justification that "These are all published by Rhine. At the least, not independant. Show indep. source". I have provided reference to the J. of Communication. Also, the editor of the J. of Parapsychology was, in its early years, not Rhine but Gardner Murphy, and other esteemed psychologists, such as E. Hilgard, were on its Board of Review. The culler must seek to denigrate not only myself, but these well-known psychologists, if she wishes to pursue her point. --Rodgarton 11:36, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

The claims are not independent as they were in a journal over which Rhine had editorial control. Find a source for successful replication of experiments in sources outside of his purview and insertion will not be blocked.Simonm223 (talk) 14:42, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

The point about the J. Parapsychology being under Rhine's editorial control (not constant over the referenced articles) is evidentially disputable, and should not offer, by any stretch, a condemnation of the authors who have published in the journal - which have included some of the leading statisticians and psychologists of their time (e.g., Feller, Murphy). One of the articles brandished by the commentator/culler as unreliable, given its publication in the J. Parapsychology, was authored by a much-feted scholar of the University of Colorado, Dorothy Martin. The personnel of the U/Colorado would be quite put out should they learn of the slights against their scholar being advocated in the pages of WP! But the commentator/culler, in any case, lately shifts the goal-posts now to demanding citation of articles outside of the JP altogether. Sorry, I thought we were discussing knowledge, not playing chess! Anyway, we can supply the commentator with references a-plenty. Let us see how just this one fares at her hands:
Oram, A. T. (1946). Nature of time. Nature, 157, 556.

The concern is that claims of successful replication published in a magazine under the editorial control of Rhine are not independent, second party verification of successful replication as Rhine had editorial control. We need evidence of studies, independent of Rhine, claiming success in sources independent of Rhine in order to confirm second party verification of experiment success. Please stop trying to push your POV.Simonm223 (talk) 15:10, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Disputed paragraph

However, apart from Rhine's own ongoing studies, psychologists and other scientists at other universities were indeed able to replicate his results. This included a massive series of studies conducted at the University of Colorado by Dorothy Randolph Martin; a highly significant series conducted by the Bernard Riess, of Hunter College, City University of New York ; and studies conducted by the Executive Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution, Charles Greeley Abbot.

---

I have copied the disputed information here. Please try to reach WP:CONSENSUS before reverting to your preferred version.

Claims from Honorton are highly suspect; he was himself a highly biased author. His work on "culling noise" in detection of "anomalous psychological phenomena" is mostly useful as a case study in confirmation bias. The other two we have already discussed. Simonm223 (talk) 19:15, 20 September 2009 (UTC)