Talk:Materialization (paranormal)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Comments

Spontaneous vibuthi (holy ash) manifestations are also reported by followers of SSB on his pictures at their homes.

I'm having a hard time into believing the author was not praking... --Abu Badali 20:19, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I can imagine your opinion, but it is well sourced. Andries 14:01, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Pseudoscience

There is clearly a bunch of uneducated wannabe physicists around here who are unable to make a difference between rational skepticism and reverse beliefs, i.e. that something is impossible whatever the circumstances. The production of matter _is_ defined in physics and cannot be replaced by random assertions that a production of matter would violate mass-energy conservation, especially when the editor clearly does not understand what this conservation law entails. Therefore, deleting a complete section explaining what "materialization" is from the point of view of a physicist shows that the editors have an agenda and do not respect a neutral point of view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.101.208.168 (talk) 15:43, 16 August 2014 (UTC) (For further reference, I just created an account to stop editing with an IP address only. User name = Anaphylaxis2014.)

So as to make my point clear one more time: the citation of LuckyLouie is dubious because: 1. Paranormal materialization is not explicitly defined by paranormal authors as a process requiring no energy, nor existing matter. Therefore, they do not assume a violation of mass-energy conservation per se. 2. The production of matter is allowed by accepted modern physics without violating the conservation of mass-energy: either by using another form of energy and convert it to matter, or by transforming existing matter, like transmutation which allows to change a chemical element to another one. And actually there is an exception to the conversation of mass-energy, it is the production of virtual pairs from vacuum quantum fluctuations. Anyway, the citation of LuckyLouie is clearly NOT representing science in general, but a point of view that assumes a definition of paranormal materialization which is biased.Anaphylaxis2014 (talk) 09:11, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

ANI and 3RR

There are discussions at ANI and 3RR involving this article. - - MrBill3 (talk) 12:20, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Article under WP:ARBPS

This is a notice that this article falls under WP:ARBPS, discretionary sanctions apply, I have added the appropriate banner to the top of this Talk page. Zad68 12:40, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

ANI and NORN

Let's resolve this issue at [1] (normally the discussion should mainly be held in NORN) and [2] once and for all. Logos (talk) 04:49, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Original research

The IP user persistently adds an unreferenced piece which is their personal opinion. First, it has no relation to the article. Second, it is bullshit, and they apparently have difficulties understanding 1st year physics curriculum. Third, it is unsourced. They added it four times, and we finally need to discuss it before they get blocked for edit-warring.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:53, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Listen kid, you clearly does not understand what mass-energy equivalence is, otherwise you would know that this principle states that any form of energy can be converted into matter, this is basically what the famous "E=mc²" is about, so don't come with your arrogant "have difficulties understanding 1st year physics curriculum" because you're clearly the one having no clue here.

Second, producing matter is defined by modern physics through a variety of phenomena, thus making a link between "materialization" as defined by parapsychologists and the production of matter as defined by scientists is clearly ON TOPIC, unlike what you wrote. You cannot let a statement that says "if it was possible, it would violate X and Y" and refuse a statement that says "if it was possible, it would entail X and Y physical process" unless you do not have a neutral point of view, which I believe is the case.

Third, I didn't "add it four times", but I reverted your abusive deletions that favor a point of view which is actually incorrect (i.e. there can be production of matter without violating the principle of conservation of energy as long as energy is brought to the process), over mere facts. If you disagree with what I wrote, you will have to delete a myriad of articles of physics in Wikipedia too.

At last, I did bring a source, check it again, relating to the production of matter from another form of energy (photons that is). 84.101.208.168 (talk) 16:07, 16 August 2014 (UTC) MICK

(for further reference, I just created an account to stop editing with an IP address only. User name = Anaphylaxis2014.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anaphylaxis2014 (talk • contribs) 16:17, 16 August 2014‎ (UTC)

I'm sorry, but even with the citation it's still original research. Specifically, it's original synthesis - combining material from multiple sources to "reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources". The source you're citing doesn't make a connection between pair production and paranormal materialization; you are the one connecting the two. Kolbasz (talk) 17:34, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

That's correct. Sources don't just have to meet our criteria at WP:RS, they need to specific address the subject, in this case paranomral materialization. Dougweller (talk) 18:53, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Let's say this is original research because its conclusions are supposedly original and then I won't add my "original research" to the article again, for the sake of clarity in the discussion. This DOES NOT solve the issue the existing citation presents. It pretends that any materialization would entail a violation of mass-energy conservation. As I have already explained, this is simply false, citation or not citation it doesn't matter. And I do not suppose Wikipedia allows citations that are CONTRARY TO ACCEPTED LAWS OF PHYSICS. There are at least 3 physical processes that allow "materialization", and they do not violate conservation of energy because they require energy to be added to the process. While this may or may not be connected to the hypothetical phenomenon of psychic materialization is irrelevant here, as I am now only talking about the false pretense that physics do not allow materialization whatever the circumstances. So guys, whether you say that there is no accepted physical theory of psychic materialization and thus nothing can be said about its hypothetical method and thus NOBODY can pretend there is violation of conservation of energy since there is no theory that would explicitly states that "psychic materialization definition does not include phenomena when energy is used to support the emergence of new matter" (and the article introduction does not make such limitation to the definition) or you have to balance the existing citation with an explanation of how, actually, physics allow new matter to be formed. You cannot have it both ways and I hope you will realize it. So my suggestion would be to delete the phrase that forbids all materializations if we are to solve this conflict in a rational and reasonable manner.Anaphylaxis2014 (talk) 03:03, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Fine, I take your silence as a sign of bad faith.Anaphylaxis2014 (talk) 08:57, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia works by consensus, not by the loudest argument. The reasons for not adding your theoretical explanation to the article have been covered. But if you still feel wronged, take your ideas to a noticeboard like WP:NPOVN, WP:FTN, WP:RSN or even Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science. Stick around, edit some other articles, and gain an understanding of the encyclopedia's policies before you accuse other editors. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:11, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Mentioning that a citation is dubious does not require a consensus. And yes, I am going to report it to a board.Anaphylaxis2014 (talk) 08:47, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

I should add that it is interesting to see that you would NEVER give an answer to my arguments, nor explain why I would be wrong and you would be right with your citation. You clearly hide behind Wikipedia procedures that are unrelated because you are not even willing to discuss your point. Everything shows that you don't know what you're talking about.Anaphylaxis2014 (talk) 08:56, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

The author of your citation, Manual Vasquez, is not a scientist but a professor of business ethics at Santa Clara University. So using this citation under a section named "scientific views" is quite misleading, to say the least.Anaphylaxis2014 (talk) 09:30, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree that this particular claim is dubious, and the tag should remain. Furthermore, maintenance tags do not require consensus to be added. It needs to be possible to flag problems with an article even over the objections of its authors. Reyk _YO! 09:53, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

@Anaphylaxis2014: In light of E=mc² and the claims above, it interesting to ascertain how much mass a materialisation actually involves. Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that exactly 1 gram of apparition actually materializes using the accepted physics. This would entail (per Einstein) an energy of 89.9 terajoules, equavalent to 21.5 kilotons of TNT (see here). One milligram (a teeny-tiny amount of mass) would still involve several gigajoules (24972 kWh). Where is that energy thought to come from, what is the source, for this is not a trivial amount. Extracting this amount of energy from the environment would produce some significant, if not spectacular, measurable effects in the vinicity of the materialisation. For that simple reason the "dubious"-tag seems very much out of place. Kleuske (talk) 10:12, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

The problem with your calculation is: 1. You assume the materialization has a specific weight while spirit authors do not mention a particular weight, as far as I know, 2. You assume the materialization does not reuse the surrounding matter (especially the medium body or the surrounding air). Authors talking about those hypothetical materializations do not mention their weight, so you are only speculating here. The only examples I have read so far, talk about something "fluidic", so if that was to be understood in physics terms, that would be more of a low energy plasma. Considering that all spiritism séances are done in almost complete darkness, the energy necessary to produce a plasma-like luminescence is not as high as what you write. I am NOT saying paranormal materialization is possible. However what you write does not prove that mass-energy conservation is broken, if only because they always take place in air and air can be ionized to produce a glow. Anaphylaxis2014 (talk) 10:31, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Please see the guideline WP:FRINGE § WP:Parity. Velasquez 2013 more than meets the requirements for a source on this subject. Further objection should be brought to the Reliable sources noticeboard. This article needs substantial work to get closer to NPOV and FRINGE compliance and appropriately represent the mainstream academic consensus and make clear that minority fringe ideas are such. - - MrBill3 (talk) 10:27, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Velasquez is not a scientist and thus does not meet the requirements to be placed under a "scientific views" section. Anaphylaxis2014 (talk) 10:31, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Actually read the guideline. Take it to RSN if you think you have a case. Also see WP:NOTFORUM and read No original research. - - MrBill3 (talk) 10:37, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

You can quote dozens of acronyms, this doesn't change a thing. We're talking about a citation from a book by a professor of business ethics, that pretends to represent "the mainstream academic consensus" on a question of physics. Fact is, I dare you to find reliable sources from PHYSICISTS that support this citation. That should not be difficult if it really represents "the mainstream academic consensus". Anaphylaxis2014 (talk) 10:47, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

The acronyms are pointers to the policies and guidelines by which Wikipedia operates. Competency is required so an editor is expected to have an understanding of these policies and guidelines, particularly the core policies Neutral point of view, No original research and Verifiability (I spelled them out for you, you'll find full text explanations at the links). The Reliable sources noticeboard is the appropriate forum for mediation of your claim. Oh and see: Tsan, Ung Chan (2013). "Mass, matter, materialization, mattergenesis and conservation of charge". International Journal of Modern Physics E. 22 (5): 1350027. doi:10.1142/S0218301313500274.. - - MrBill3 (talk) 11:03, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

I know what those acronyms are, thank you very much. Regarding your new citation, it corresponds precisely to what was reproached to me earlier: original synthesis. Your article does not address paranormal materialization per se, so you're the one making the link. Anaphylaxis2014 (talk) 11:14, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, did you really read and understand the article you cite? Anaphylaxis2014 (talk) 11:18, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps you have failed to read the explanations given in the guidelines, "Parity of sources may mean that certain fringe theories are only reliably and verifiably reported on, or criticized, in alternative venues from those that are typically considered reliable sources for scientific topics on Wikipedia. For example, the lack of peer-reviewed criticism of creation science should not be used as a justification for marginalizing or removing scientific criticism of creation science, since creation science itself is almost never published in peer-reviewed journals." "The prominence of fringe views needs to be put in perspective relative to the views of the entire encompassing field; limiting that relative perspective to a restricted subset of specialists or only among the proponents of that view is, necessarily, biased and unrepresentative." A textbook on philosophy and an physics article that specifically addresses the issue of materialization in terms of the laws of physics clearly meet the guideline.

A full understanding of the physics article will take some time, however the clear support for the content of the WP article is within my level of understanding. I'm not sure I will fully grasp the entire content of the physics article but I can pretty easily see the clear explanation that materialization would falsify the law of conservation of mass-energy. How would you assert that it is synth to address the plausibility of assertions of paranormal materialization actually occurring in the physical universe based on the physics article. Scientific articles don't generally identify a phenomenon as paranormal. - - MrBill3 (talk) 11:32, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Then two questions: (1) Why was this citation under "scientific view" section if it is an alternative source and not a scientific one per se? (2) Why was my own paragraph, which is simply links to other Wikipedia articles explaining what production of matter entails was deleted on the ground it was original research if you are to cite an article that is not specifically connected to paranormal materialization either? There seems to be double weight, double measures here. Anaphylaxis2014 (talk) 11:50, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Agree with MrBill3. WP:PSCI also applies; any pseudoscience needs to be clearly identified as such. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 11:38, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

The original citation discusses the philosophy of science concerning material and how scientists analyze such a question. Your own material was fringe synth. There is no exception to 3RR to "maintain" a tag that other editors have removed, particularly when consensus is against such a tag. - - MrBill3 (talk) 12:10, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Velasques's book does not have any attribution to "paranormal materialization" or even just to "materialization" in page 84. There is only a discussion of "how a supposedly immaterial mind can control a material body" within the context of dualist view, in that page 84. In fact, "conservation of matter and energy" remark is just a silly synthesis made by the author; which -in the end- makes this source unusable within the context of this article. Sources are not always reliable, because WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. Additionally, it somehow falls under WP:TERTIARY, and in wikipedia we should be careful when using tertiary sources, because velasques uses WP:WEASEL words to justify his silly remark ("..scientists tell us that this is impossible because it would violate the principle of conservation of matter and energy"); which scientists are they, where are the sources?. It is the same as me citing some views about materialization from a channeled text in this article. The second source -the one by a chinese- added by MrBill3 serves the purpose, even if it might not be directly addressing "paranormal materialization". Readers can click on the source and see the scope of the article, and decide whether the scope can also cover paranormal or not. Actually the wording in Materialization_(paranormal)#Scientific_views does not necessitate such. Not OR to me. Also, it is not logical to expect "mainstream scientific view" to differentiate "paranormal materialization" from plain "materialization", considering its current position against such topics. Logos (talk) 16:01, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Velasquez states, "If it did so, then the mind would somehow have to introduce new energy and force into the physical world. But scientists tell us that this is impossible because it would violate the principle of conservation of matter and energy." It seems to me introduction of new energy and force into the physical world is what materialization would be. Creation of matter is introduction of new energy and force. The claim that using the phrase "scientists tell us this is impossible" is weasel wording seems to miss that this is an academic source simply stating the very widely held scientific consensus on the conservation of matter and energy. Velasquez does as I said discuss the analysis of claims.

Naming specific scientists is not the standard procedure in stating basic laws of physics. The statement, "it is not logical to expect 'mainstream scientific view' to differentiate 'paranormal materialization' from plain 'materialization', considering its current position against such topics." would seem to indicate an understanding that this FRINGE topic is clearly best dealt with consideration for WP:PARITY. If the mainstream scientific view doesn't differentiate as a WP editor does, the mainstream scientific view is what WP presents predominantly not the generally dismissed views of a small minority. The proposal that a self published fringe website is comparable to a textbook published by a reputable publisher is ridiculous to the point of being tendentious. The comment, "the one by a chinese" smacks of racism. Likewise your characterization of Velasquez' published statment as silly bears little weight in comparison to the editorial oversight for a textbook. - - MrBill3 (talk) 13:32, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

I removed Velasques's book, as it is very clear that, you're not after a proper sourcing, you're just trying to defend that irrevelant book irrationally. This article is about materialization, not about discussions related to dualist view, which I don't think that you have any clue about.

"It seems to me introduction of new energy and force into the physical world is what materialization would be": No; what seems to you is a clear WP:SYNTH.

Conservation of matter and energy is not a widely scientific consensus, it is a principle/law, but that law/principle is not about velasquez's synthy conclusion about mind and body. You are further syntesizing velasques's already synthy/silly idea into something irrelevant and adding into this article. It is quite obvious that you have no any miniscule expertise about these energy and matter issues. Don't try to insert such irrelevant sources into the article again.

My statement about the differentiation of 'paranormal materialization' from plain 'materialization' is towards the second source -the one by a chinese-. Even that source can not back the sentence in the wp article fully. Because, the author of that article does not have full command of english, and his article is about nuclear physics, not about paranormal materialization. There isn't any attribution to paranormal materialization in the article of that chinese. Therefore, normally that source can also be removed due to its irrelevance. Stop adding synthy and silly comments of irrelevant people based on your synthy argumentation into the article.

"The one by a chinese" does not smack of racism, it warns editors about that chinese author's inadequate english. I'm sure you very well know the consequences of these kinds of unsubstantiated accusations. Go read fallacy and try to avoid any. Logos (talk) 10:16, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Feel free to produce your high quality reliable sources that discuss the scientific view of "paranormal materialization" and present the widely held views and others given serious scholarly consideration. Then parity would not apply. What is the scientific view on "paranormal materialization" and what source do you suggest represents that? "The one by a chinese" is markedly different than stating "the article is written by an author with limited writing skills in English" (is there a pot there?) That is not unsubstantiated it is the difference between a dismissive remark pointing out a person's country of origin and a neutral comment focused on evaluating a source based on a contention. Note also that the content was not added by myself but by another editor, I merely reverted your removal, which lacks support here. - - MrBill3 (talk) 10:58, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

You should know the rule: no source means no content. Maybe you should search better. People's countries of origins are not within the scope of racist remarks; if "chinese" is a racist remark, then should "american" or "african" also. Calling a chinese as "chinese" is not racist, but "Chink" is. "Pakistani" is not racist, but Paki would be. Chinese scholars are also famous for their unmatched speed of article production. So, the phrase "chinese" summarizes both the inadequate language skills and the abnormal motivation in producing articles. Materialization is not the right word in science; matter genesis is. Adding a "scientific view" section into an unscientific concept or area of study is erroneous from the very beginning. Logos (talk) 11:44, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Logos, there is no consensus to remove the source. I am reverting your removal. Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:42, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Logos, can I ask you what the heck your edit summary means here [3] ? Oh and you are edit warring stop it please. Dbrodbeck (talk) 13:37, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Which consensus? Have you edited the article or participated in this dispute before? First you should discuss the issue, if you have any opinion. My edit summary means: be careful about your wording "move on"; would you like me to explain in other words? Please stop adding irrelevant sources into the article, or look for a wider consensus in Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard (don't forget to add the context there). Logos (talk) 13:49, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

I am participating right now. Oh, and I meant no offense with the expression 'move on' and I apologize if offense was taken. Dbrodbeck (talk) 13:53, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

I haven't seen any participation, yet. You should explain your reasoning in adding that irrelevant source into the article again. Logos (talk) 13:56, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree with pretty much everything MrBill3 has posted. Dbrodbeck (talk) 14:04, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm afraid this is not a participation; his argumentation has been proven false already. Logos (talk) 14:10, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm afraid 'proven false' is not the same as 'I don't like it'. Dbrodbeck (talk) 14:13, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Let me correct your expression: "I'm afraid 'proven false' is the same as 'I don't like it'" Logos (talk) 02:27, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

It seems from the discussion above there is pretty clear consensus support for the source. Keep in mind that consensus is not a vote and most the objections have come from an editor who is now topic banned was blocked for edit warring on this article and a Logos who seems to think that his argumentation amounts to "proven false" which is more than questionable. Repeated removal of content that was placed by one editor, and restored after removal by several other editors and has recieved support on talk is edit warring. - - MrBill3 (talk) 01:06, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Consensus is not something that can overrule any policy -in this particular case WP:OR-. Remember that "all users should normally follow" the policies. A bunch of ignorant users can not gather and revolt against WP:OR. Besides, I just see 3 users here; if you mean the defective consensus 10-15 days ago, then WP:CCC. You better stop WP:GAMING the system and twisting some facts; such as misrepresenting Anaphylaxis2014's 24h block as a topic ban. I'm filing a case in WP:NORN; you can defend your position there. Logos (talk) 02:30, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

I've removed the section entirely because it is indeed all original research and synthesis. None of the sources used actually refer to paranormal materialization and are simply things that go "science says you can't create something from nothing" or "look at this odd experiment that sort of fits in with this theme". The whole lot of people here who have been disrupting the page and wasting time on ANI and NORN should be given discretionary sanctions as mentioned elsewhere on the page.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 12:41, 31 August 2014 (UTC)