Talk:Parapsychology/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

→

Archive 15

By whom

LaraLove, per WP:V, "Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed.". The portion of the sentence that I removed and you reverted in this diff is challenged. I wouldn't have removed it if I didn't think it were verifiable by a reliable source. You re-added it, saying, "Removing that part of the sentence doen't remove the claim." Per WP:V, however, the burden of proof is on those who would keep something in an article. If there is a reliable source to back that statement, then let's cite it. Otherwise, it needs to be removed. Antelan ^talk 14:51, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

You removed half of a sentence. The remaining half still requires citation, therefore, I restored the full sentence and tagged it as requiring attribution. Lara♥Love 14:56, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Works for me. Antelan ^talk 23:27, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

What needs cited? Wikidudeman ^(talk) 05:59, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I took care of it. [1] --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 06:06, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Collaboration at it's finest. Lara♥Love 06:10, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Courtesy source

"the Parapsychology Association took a large step in advancing the field of parapsychology when they became affiliated with the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)" is sourced to the Encyclopedia of Occultism and Parapsychology, published by independent researchers Thomson Gale. The sourced text reads "In 1969 the Association took a giant step in advancing the field by affiliating with the American Association for the Advancement of Science." --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 18:57, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

This is the source for the text that I added to the Parapsychological Association section, Martinphi. You might not see it as a large step, but it was a huge step. The affiliation is what caused the decade of increased research during the 1970s. But the reason I'm highlighting the above is to show you that the specific wording I chose is based on the source. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 08:06, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Titles

The titles I'm pulling from the researcher's articles here at Wikipedia (ex. [2]), if any are contested, please tag it and I'll address it. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 06:24, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with calling a spade a spade. Antelan ^talk 07:28, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Keep it up - these titles add meaning and flavor to the article. Antelan ^talk 07:39, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree, and thanks! --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 08:11, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Length of Article

Out of interest, this article now exceeds most other scienctific articles here in Wikipedia, geology for example. Sure these have lots of links to other areas of further information, but so does this one. Just flagging this point for interest's sake. Shot info 09:21, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

We haven't gotten to weeding out bulk and repetition yet. A lot of things that take a lot of words can be said with less. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 16:47, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

True. We don't want to create offshoot articles as happened last time. That quickly turns into a maze of interrelated articles that say the same thing and are nothing but POV forks. We can trim this article down as far as size goes pretty easily I think, But The size isn't that much of a problem right now anyway. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 03:34, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Parapsychology today section

This section seems to have NPOV problems, most notably citing Smee, using bits of his article that seem to favour PEAR (e.g. numbers of trials - and ignoring any criticism. I've marked it. Adam Cuerden ^talk 20:33, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I addressed the pov concerns [3] and removed the tag. If the edit doesn't adequately address the concern, the tag can be readded and I'll readdress it. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 21:03, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

That looks fine! Thanks! Adam Cuerden ^talk 21:55, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

And your edits as well, good job. Good example of how to say the same thing in less words. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 23:56, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Annalisa has reverted Adam's changes. Her edit summary says, "removed out-of-place material. please keep critical statements in the criticism section." Is this a policy or guideline? For readability, it makes sense to include the full context given by the Smee article in one paragraph, as Adam had done. What's the consensus here? Antelan ^talk 03:29, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Or rather as I had done.[4] I'm a credit whore : ) --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 05:22, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

No. I would prefer all criticism be kept in the criticism section to prevent constant "Replies" to criticism and then more replies to those replies etc, etc. This is one of the main problems we've had with the article last time. We need to keep criticism totally separate from everything else and everything else separate from criticism so that we don't run into that problem again. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 03:32, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Exactly WDM, totally right. –––Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 05:30, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure that's realistic, but the article is balanced, so I'm fine with it. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 05:44, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Re-added User:Adam Cuerden's POV tag. I removed it during my fix, so it's only fair to him to put it back in if the fix doesn't stick. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 06:14, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

In resolving the disputed neutrality of that section, we have three recommended choices according to WP:Criticism (not a guideline or policy, but an established essay):

• In separate sections in articles about the criticised topic, if such proceeding is justified;
• Integrated throughout an article, if such proceeding is justified;
• In other articles than the article about the topic, if such proceeding is justified.

--Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 06:44, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

You can't ghettoise criticism of a controversial topic to the end of an article, particularly where doing so actively misrepresents the cited source. Adam Cuerden ^talk 06:46, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll leave one other comment and then leave it to others to figure out. I would argue that whatever content is placed in this section (be it what is there now or what would be there in the future) isn't in the context of a pro- con- controversy like the "research" section and "criticism" section. This particular section is a present day "status" section in the context of parapsychology history. A negative statement like parapsychology has "waned" isn't a criticism, it's a status statement. An explanation of why it has waned isn't a criticism, it's an explanation of the status. So that's one side of the issue. It's not pro- then con- and in that sense I agree with Adam. That said, I don't really agree that what was there before is a misrepresentation of the source. The source is only used to verify that PEAR gathered data from tens of millions of trials over 28 years and that they personally feel that they accomplished their goal. Those are both factual statements not in controversy. The only reason PEAR is mentioned in this section is because it talks about the waning of parapsychology and PEAR (a notable lab) recently closed. Why they closed is not that relevant in a section only dealing with the status. The why is covered in the other sections, prominently. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 07:16, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

But giving the number of trials is, in effect, a big numbers argument; in other words, an insistence that because they had so many successful trials, it must be true. However, the PEAR trials were very weak statistically, and prone to post-hoc explanations of the data. In other words, the success of the PEAR trials is being misrepresented by choosing only the facts that make it appear better than it was, which is dishonest. Adam Cuerden ^talk 11:13, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm willing sit back and let you guys figure it out, but I have to respond to the use of "dishonest", because that's a pretty strong evaluation. This issue is completely dependent on how the reader chooses to look at it. Millions of trials is factually neutral. It is devoid of comment on how many of those trials were successful and how many were not. Realistically speaking, something that was conclusively positive would require far less trials. The fact that it took millions of trials before they called it a day and closed shop could just as easily be interpreted as a negative statement. This negative statement is reflected in the source by the guy who said "I don't know why it took a whole lifetime". --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 16:11, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Adam, the editors here agreed by prior consensus that the best way to get this article to stabalize is to allow parapsychology to state its case uninterupted, allow the critics to state their case uninterupted, then end the article. Otherwise, we end up with a criticism-response format that just goes on and on and on...a previous version of this article tried to do that, and it was not sucessful. If you would like to revert back to those days, you will need to consensus of the other editors here. Otherwise, you are welcome to integrate the material that I deleted into to the criticism section. --Annalisa Ventola _{(Talk | Contribs)} 11:56, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with that as being a general consensus. Criticism-response is unacceptable, but so is, as Adam aptly puts, "ghettoising" all statements that have even a whiff of criticism. Antelan ^talk 13:11, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

This was the consensus when I was working on my draft of the article (to which you were invited, but did not participate), and it was also the consensus when WDM led another draft of the article. Giving critics the final word in this article is hardly 'ghettoising' them. Adam's statement contained much more than a "whiff" of criticism. Additionally, it was redundant, since criticism of the PEAR lab already appears near the end of the article. --Annalisa Ventola _{(Talk | Contribs)} 19:23, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I am an outside editor, and I have just scanned through the comments here, the article and the recent article edits. I have a few comments.

• I am not happy with the wording in places in the article
• I would favor a stronger negative section in the LEAD.
• I am not sure why Adam's edits were controversial.
• Although the bulk of the criticism should be in the criticism section perhaps, I do not understand why a word or two in a couple of other places, connecting the criticism section to other parts of the article is impossible.
• I would favor an even stronger criticism section.
• I wonder if we have a broad enough view of parapsychology in this article. I have not checked this stuff out, but have we included all the material that Brian Josephson links on his webpage, for example? [5]. He has also been involved with some quantum/neuronal speculation himself, which is widely regarded as complete rubbish. I heard a lecture on it and I was stunned at how awful it sounded.--Filll 12:56, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

• You will need to be more specific
• The lead is a summary of the article. The length of the criticism part of the lead is a reflection of the length of the criticism section in the article.
• Adam's edits were controversial because they went against the structure of the article and because they were redundant (similar arguments about PEAR appear later in the article)
• Because there are counter arguments to criticisms of parapsychological research, and the article (as well as the general reader) does not need to be bogged down by them.
• ...then please contribute to it.
• This article is a summary of the field. It still needs a couple of paragraphs about spontaneous case research, but we need not highlight every parapsychologist in the field and/or their pet theories. --Annalisa Ventola _{(Talk | Contribs)} 19:53, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I want to avoid any mentions of explanations for possible mechanisms for parapsychological phenomena. All so called "quantum mechanical speculation" about mechanisms of "psi" should probably be avoided unless we're able to directly quote the individuals making such speculations. Due to the nature of such speculations, paraphrasing them would be impossible, even for someone who has a degree in quantum mechanics since often their explanations misunderstand quantum physics or neurology. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 21:28, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikidudeman's opinion

Let me first state that I don't see separating criticism into its own section as "ghettoising", especially when that section is substantially large. A better word for it would be "segregating", which fits the situation much better. It's true that during the construction of this article we (or at least I thought) had agreed to keep criticism segregated from the rest of the article to prevent constant "reply/reply/reply" to everything. Concerning pointing out that there were "millions" of trials dealing with parapsychology in the past, I don't see how this is POV. As has been pointed out, the sentence doesn't mention the success or failure of said studies. Here are the problematic sentences:

"Other laboratories, notably the Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research Laboratory (PEAR), closed feeling they had accomplished their goal of proving the existence of parapsychological effects, despite the lack of acceptance by mainstream scientists. PEAR ended its active research in February 2007, having gathered data from tens of millions of trials over 28 years."

This sentence might have a vague POV problem if it were to stand alone by itself, however it doesn't stand alone by itself. The sentence is a part of the article as a whole which CLEARLY states that "To date, no experimental results have been accepted by the mainstream scientific community as providing irrefutable evidence for paranormal phenomena." I fail to see any problem here. A suggestion for improving the section is to mention why PEAR was exactly shut down, perhaps citing Princeton itself and its reasons for cutting funding, etc. This would not only keep the criticism itself in the criticism section but it also might improve the tone of that section. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 21:23, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree, but wanted to mention that they solely closed by their own choice, citing completion of the work and a lack of acceptance by mainstream science. Independent speculation suggested lack of funds, but they had been operating on a lack of funds for some time without closing. (sources available upon request) But again, this is a "status" section and the why's of the status is completely covered in other sections. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 21:42, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Then perhaps the "feeling they had accomplished their goal of proving the existence" should be removed as well, going with that same idea. Why does it matter why they stated they had closed? That could be elaborated on the Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research Lab article. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 21:50, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

As long as it said something to the effect that they closed on their own and weren't shut down or kicked out by Princeton (a common misconception), I'd have no problem with that. Since it'd be a substantial change, we should get some other opinions beforehand. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 21:54, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

A lot of people would assume they were kicked out, but I don't know just how to phrase it to avoid this misconception. –––Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 22:04, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

"Other laboratories, notably the Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research Laboratory (PEAR), have decided to discontinue research." Wikidudeman ^(talk) 22:12, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

That's better, but people would now assume that they discontinued because they thought there was nothing to find. –––Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 22:14, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what would suggest that. If they want to find out why they decided to stop research then they could easily click on the link to the article about the organization. If we're going to mention at all why they stated they stopped researching then it would only be fair to mention the credible postulations about why they stopped researching, which leads down a slippery slope. We should just say that they 'decided' to discontinue research and end it there. I won't state my opinions on why I believe they stopped researching since it's not relevant. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 22:17, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Sort of the same thing: "Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research Laboratory (PEAR) retired their laboratory in 2007, having gathered data from tens of millions of trials over 28 years." Emphasis wouldn't be added, of course. Doesn't remark about whether there was anything to find or not. Retire sort of sounds like they felt their work was done without actually saying it, and without suggesting why. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 22:20, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

"Retired" sounds perfect. –––Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 22:28, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok, Make the changes. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 22:31, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Can make the change, but we'll still need to check with Adam on the tag. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 22:42, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

That leaves in the big number argument. I suppose that if we cut the number of trials, it might be barely acceptable, though given most people won't read the article to the end, I think a sentence or two explaining the other side in each section would be appropriate, or at least a strong statement in the lead. Adam Cuerden ^talk 22:52, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

If the trials are sourced then we can't cut the number. If the source says "Millions" then we must say millions per the source. I don't see a problem with the number. If standing alone it could mean they gathered millions of trials which were successful and thus in success they decided to close down, Or it could mean that they gathered info on millions of trials which failed to prove "Psi" and thus they decided to shut down due to whatever reason. However in the context of the article, It CLEARLY says that there is no accepted evidence of "Psi". This would mean that any data they compiled, it wasn't accepted in mainstream science. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 22:57, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

You say that "in the context of the article, it CLEARLY says that there is no accepted evidence of "Psi"" which I agree is true. But aren't you advocating for removing this context from the discussion of "millions"? This is the "ghettoisation" (a WWII reference, not a modern American slang reference) or "segregation" which is concerning. Antelan ^talk 23:45, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Adam, the qualifying sentence you're looking for is "Many university laboratories in the United States have closed, citing a lack of acceptance by mainstream science as the reason, leaving the bulk of parapsychology confined to private institutions funded by philanthropic sources", which is in that section. The criticism section elaborates on the lack of acceptance. It's not our responsibility to direct the reader to the criticism section. Naturally readers who don't buy it will gravitate there anyway. For neutrality reasons, adding a critical snippet to each section will force us to add rebuttals to each section of the criticism part, something that we have not done. Instead, we chose the option in WP:Criticism to neutrally describe each point of view in their own sections. To the big number argument, again, it's not an argument. Millions of successful trials would be a positive point of view. The negative view is that they were millions of unsuccessful trials. Neutrality is achieved by not saying they were positive or negative, just that they were conducted (status statement). Two points of view are listed in the source, after all. One that they were positive. One that they were negative. We say neither because they are unnecessary opinions that cancel each other out, especially when viewed from the overall opinion of "not accepted". --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 23:47, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Nealparr. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 23:53, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Why are we bringing up the number of trials here, then? It doesn't add anything to say the number of trials divorced from a discussion of the trials. Adam Cuerden ^talk 02:10, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Status statement and illustration of notability. They closed having performed millions of trials over 28 years. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 02:17, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Which we do not describe the nature of or results. Adam Cuerden ^talk 05:56, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Right. –––Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 06:02, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Because the interpretations cancel each other out and it is already framed as not accepted. I feel like we're talking in circles. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 06:03, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

It just seems like this article is trying to always frame parapsychology in as positive terms as possible, until the very end. Given that not everyone will read to the end, this seems somewhat questionable for NPOV purposes, since it hides the controversy, in effect. Adam Cuerden ^talk 06:23, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I just don't feel that's the case, and feel it's not our responsibility to make up the reader's mind for them, just present sourced facts and opinions. The article does that and we've spent a great deal of time working out neutrality. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 06:32, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Options:

1. Remove the "millions of trials" because it is too big a number, or the reader might think it says something that it actually doesn't. <-bad precedence
2. Leave it in because it demonstrates notability and move on. <-no justifiable reason to remove it
3. Add both the positive and negative views to this section, which will lead to positive and negative view in all the other sections, which is like viewing each section alone instead of the entire article as a whole, which will require another rewrite. <-legitimate approach but so is separate sections
4. Continue to talk in circles <-fine, but remove the tag because we worked really hard to get it to good article status and many editors have come through without complaint

--Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 06:27, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Let me close with a historical perspective of this article, plead for mercy, and then you all can decide : ) There have been at least 3 rewrites of this article since I've been around (roughly 2 years), a mediation, and an arbitration. I'm not a big fan of "consensus" because that only spells out a popular way to treat an article, but the separate sections approach has developed over time with many editors involved. It's kind of what Wikipedia is about. It did become a good article. We can toss that, because Wikipedia is about process, not product, but that sure is a lot of wasted time. Please? : ) Sure there's some positive stuff, but parapsychology was viewed favorably right up until the late 1970s, and is over a hundred years old. Then it went down hill fast and only requires only a little bit to cover that in the history section. The research and criticism sections cancel each other out. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 06:49, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Any comment with the goal of keeping a "good article" status? Anyone? --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 02:46, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I've read this article and from the perspective that Parapsychology is at best a fringe science and at worst a pseudoscience and has no experimental result supporting it's assertions, I can say that this article is very NPOV. I don't see a problem with removing the "millions of trials" an replacing it with "countless" or "numerous", however as it stands, it seems pretty NPOV to me. I don't interpret it as giving credence to parapsychology, but simply showing that even with data from tens of millions of trials, it still fails to show proof of paranormal occurrences. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 02:53, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

If "numerous" gets the tag off it, I'm for it. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 04:54, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to be bold and reword the sentence in a more NPOV way and just say "numerous". I went ahead and removed the tag, Adam can add it back if he sees further POV problems. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 05:40, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Eh, I'm probably being over-picky. Adam Cuerden ^talk 06:06, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Stronger intro wording

Tightened up the intro criticism.[6] "Fringe science" is a status statement, not an argument or criticism, based on the definition in the fringe science article. "Some critics" is over used and can be replaced by alternate wording that says the same thing. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 19:57, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Preemptive response: "some critics argue that the work of parapsychologists crosses the line into pseudoscience". There may be a question about my use of "argue". From WP:WTA: "'Argued' is neutral and useful to paraphrase how someone has promoted a view or idea" and I have a source for the use of the word. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 20:03, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Disclaimer: Par for the course, my wording is altered as soon as it's added. : ) Current wording in the section is not mine. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 20:08, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I like the new version, but are we absolutely certain that the two people named unequivocally regard it as science? VanTucky ^(talk) 20:09, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I didn't add that part and am not sure it's necessary. Stronger wording typically means less words. Alcock in one of the sources (forget which) says "parapsychologists are in the scientific camp", but again I don't think that's needed here. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 20:33, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I added it. Hyman says something to the effect of "parapsychology is the only scientific dicipline that doesn't have any results." Alcock says What NP said. I can easily get the sources. I changed it only because the way it was it sounded like Hyman and Alcock were among those calling it pseudoscience. If we could get rid of that implication, we could change back to just calling them skeptical scientists or whatever it was.

Poor Nealparr. Things don't get changed because someone has a grudge -usually- but just because if you edit something, you call attention to it. –––Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 20:40, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Smiley face indicates I'm not bothered by it. Added the disclaimer so there's no confusion that it came from me. I'll attempt a wording that addresses your concern. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 20:44, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I know (;. Anyway, nice recent change. Who are these "skeptical researchers" you mention? –––Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 21:40, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

All the people who don't like parapsychology. In tightening the article, I'm trying to shave off bytes and use less words. That's my goal. Everytime I shave off bytes, more are added. Some of the changes you make are improvements, but things like "which does not suggest" means the exact same thing as my less-byted "non-suggestive". --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 22:49, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Quotes

Quotes are avoided in this article for style and to avoid argument-like prose. It's in the talk page archives. In 1979, physicist John A. Wheeler became convinced that "the blessing that the AAAS had bestowed on pseudoscience was ... a consequence of the Vietnam Era, and it was time to undo it" needs rephrasing. Suggested wording: "In 1979, physicist John A. Wheeler argued that the affiliation of the PA to the AAAS was based on outdated ideas of science and needed to be reconsidered." --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 19:23, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 21:48, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

He called it pseudoscience, not "outdated ideas". This is a crucial detail in understanding why a colleague of Einstein and the teacher of Feynman wanted Parapsychology removed from the AAAS. Antelan ^talk 23:50, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Well reword it to reflect that. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 23:51, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't really want to read the book, so I'll take your word for it, but can you confirm that Wheeler used the word "pseudoscience", or was it the author Martin Gardner paraphrasing Wheeler? There's an important distinction there. If it's Wheeler, it's a direct quote and we can use that word as a primary. If it's Gardner, the "wording" is unreliable because Gardner may not be an impartial secondary source. That's why I suggest alternate wording. In both cases we should paraphrase and drop the quotes. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 00:10, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I had incorrectly placed the link to Wheeler's autobiography within the citation for Gardner's book. I've corrected the error, adding the autobiography citation. Antelan ^talk 00:49, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Suggested wording then: "In 1979, physicist John A. Wheeler argued that parapsychology is pseudoscientific, and that the affiliation of the PA to the AAAS needed to be reconsidered." That should be a sufficient paraphrasing so we can drop the quotes. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 01:00, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 01:35, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Antelan ^talk 01:43, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Go ahead. I don't personally add "pseudoscience" to the article, as a conscientious objector to using the word so often at Wikipedia : ) --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 01:46, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

It's already there; no need to add it. Antelan ^talk 01:47, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, let me put it this way, could some one other than myself please address the issue of a singular quote being in the article when other quotes were dropped in favor of avoiding quotes? --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 02:08, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Sure, but let's remove the other quotes that are left at the same time. Antelan ^talk 02:20, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

It's not that big of a deal when they are mission statements. As long as they are limited. There appears to be only 3 right now, short ones. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 02:22, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

The goal was to avoid argument-like prose. I don't think they read that way as mission statements don't have anyone to argue with. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 02:33, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

External links

The discussion got lost in the archives, but I concur, they need to be trimmed up. Strictly speaking, the external links should be about the topic itself instead of about the organizations, and be more compliant with the WP:EL guidelines, ex. Psychology#External_links. Most of the organizations need their own articles, and the journals can be included as an external link there. Alternatively, if they aren't notable enough for a full article (notable to parapsychology, but not standalone enough for an article), they can be incorporated into the body of this article and the external link can be the source. The links take up a lot of real estate in this article and someone's going to complain eventually.

Here's my suggested trimmed list (less than five is recommended):

• Parapsychology FAQ Frequently asked questions, by the Parapsychological Association, a professional organization of scientists and scholars engaged in the study of psychic phenomena, affiliated with the American Association for the Advancement of Science in 1969.

• FindArticles.com Index Large number of articles about parapsychology, from publications such as the Journal of Parapsychology and the Skeptical Inquirer.

• Committee for Skeptical Inquiry Organization formed in 1976 to promote scientific skepticism and encourage the critical investigation of paranormal claims and parapsychology.

Comments

It's not a skeptic/parapsychology issue. It's complying with guidelines. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 18:54, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

The current list is preserved here: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Parapsychology/Resources--Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 19:25, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

In order to maintain NPOV, Skeptical and Supportive links need to be equally distributed. We can't have more pro-parapsychology links than skeptical links or vise versa. The reader needs to have an equal amount of both. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 05:09, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Let me get this straight. In an article on parapsychology, you first divide sources into "skeptical" and "supportive," and then say we have to have a "balance" between "supportive" and "skeptical?" That's a nice precedent, I think we should use it in other articles, say James Randi Educational Foundation. But seriously, we are not here to divide links up like that. Rather, we divide them as Nealparr suggests, that is to say, Learning, History etc. To do anything else is to define the field with controversy rather than information or science. We should also include only links which deal exclusively or mainly with the subject. –––Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 05:39, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Parapsychology is not a point of view. It is an academic discipline. Also, this is an article about parapsychology with a subsection of criticism, not an article about the controversy between parapsychologists and their detractors. The links do not need to be 50/50, just like the article is not 50/50. --Annalisa Ventola _{(Talk | Contribs)} 08:33, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Nealparr, the current links list is there to inform the reader about the laboratories, organizations and journals in the field. It also reflects a comprise that WDM and I reached regarding a section of my draft that he deleted. If you want to do a massive rehaul of the links list, that's fine, but some variation of the Laboratories, organization, and journals section will need to be reintigrated --Annalisa Ventola _{(Talk | Contribs)} 08:33, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Also, the Library of Exploratory Science is a subscription service, and I don't know if giving the link that much weight in a pared down list is really providing any kind of service to Wikipedia readers (see number 6). --Annalisa Ventola _{(Talk | Contribs)} 08:41, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

And if you want to get really critical, CSI might be too broad of an organization to merit inclusion in an article about parapsychology (see number 13). And the essay from the skeptics dictionary is factually inaccurate (I found several factual errors just by skimming a couple of paragraphs) and contains unverifiable research (see number 2). --Annalisa Ventola _{(Talk | Contribs)} 09:02, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, good call, subscriptions services are a no-no because EL's need to be accessible (I just read the description on the link and thought it sounded cool). I appreciate that you guys reached a compromise, but other editors have raised concerns as well, and the section isn't currently compatible with the EL guidelines which calls for the minimum. Typically featured articles have less than five external links, even for the most obscure or arcane topic. It's because a lot of editors are involved that the EL guidelines were written, to handle both present and future concerns. All of this stuff is there in the WP:EL guidelines. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 17:05, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

My updated recommended list is about the topic itself, also recommended in the guidelines. The organizations and labs should be written into the body, as a subsection under research. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 17:12, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Anyone know a really good external link that covers the comprehensive history of psychical research and parapsychology? --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 18:08, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Even the Randi essay contains two factual errors. There have been psi experiments with positive results that have been replicated independantly(i.e. Ganzfeld), and JFK university does not offer a degree (or even a single course) in parapsychology. I created the Laboratories, Organizations, and Journals section to avoid this problem of external linking. If that section made a comeback, then there would only be a need for two or three external links; one to the PA, one to Public Parapsychology (which maintains current link lists to all of the labs, organizations, journals as well as providing news and an events calander), and one to a skeptical organization of some sort (if we can find one that can keep their facts straight). CSI is pretty broad, but it might do for this role. --Annalisa Ventola _{(Talk | Contribs)} 18:34, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Broad is taken care of by deep linking to the topic-related section of their website, or an authoritative article published by them, any recommended links from CSI? CSI is definitely related to parapsychology. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 19:59, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Updated the article with the more FA-like EL section. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 04:02, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Opening Sentence

I question that Reference 1 says anything like "Parapsychologists term these processes psi, a blanket word non-suggestive of what causes the phenomena or experiences." Take a look at [7] I know it is incorrect to say that psi is related to survival of consciousness after death. Also, parapsychology is careful to study the survival related phenomena in terms of "psychological phenomena" as you all are so happy to say, and not survival, which assumes a conclusion.

The intro should be written as:

"Parapsychology (from the Greek: para, "alongside" + psychology) is the study of paranormal psychological phenomena, such as extra-sensory perception, psychokinesis, and reincarnation. Parapsychologists term processes associated with extraordinary human abilities as psi or psi functioning.

This would be a little more cosistent with the "Research" section. Tom Butler 21:44, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Or you could just say:

Parapsychology (from the Greek: para, "alongside" + psychology) is the study of paranormal psychological phenomena, such as extra-sensory perception and psychokinesis. Parapsychologists term these processes psi, a blanket word non-suggestive of what causes the phenomena or experiences. Parapsychologists also study reincarnation and evidence suggestive of survival of consciousness after death.

and leave all the "extraordinary human abilities" out of it. Dogs and cats might be offended. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 22:48, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Psi also can refer to survival, according to the PA FAQ. What I put up there has been altered so many times that it barely resembles any kind of proper definition of psi. If you're going to reword things, make sure that you are following proper references closely. Thouless (1942) or stuff from the PA website would be most useful here. I've also written a short essay on the topic. --Annalisa Ventola _{(Talk | Contribs)} 03:49, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Also, Tom, parapsychologists often say that they study phenomena 'suggestive of survival'...a phrase that is supposed to indicate skepticism on the survival issue. It was taken out by another editor who thought that the phrase was trying to support the survival issue. I was too tired to argue with him. --Annalisa Ventola _{(Talk | Contribs)} 04:20, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Using Thouless (1942) for 2007 is a lot like using a 1942 geology book to support plate tectonics ... unless you are trying to make the point that the field has not advanced since then. Also "Strictly speaking “psi” also applies to survival of death." appears to have been tacked on to the definition and virtually all of the rest of the PA's definition is cognition and action oriented. "Suggestive of" is more correct, but based on reports of a recent PA conference, it was a big deal that survival subjects were even mentioned by speakers. Nevertheless, I will yield to the PA. Now if I can just get the PA to pay attention to their own definition. Tom Butler 16:09, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

The 1942 reference is for the origination of the term 'psi', just like we go back to Dessior in the late 1800's for an explanation of the term 'parapsychology'. I see no reason not to get historical when talking about the language of the field. I don't think that the PA is as antagonistic toward survival research as your comments here suggest. However, I would be interested in seeing these reports that you speak of. --Annalisa Ventola _{(Talk | Contribs)} 17:18, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I like Nealparr's version if we have to change things, and I think Annalisa's evidence and argument here is pretty strong. The article is a chronicle of the field as a whole, not just the present moment and its definitions. VanTucky ^(talk) 03:45, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

If you are going to say, "paranormal psychological phenomena" in a paragraph with "survival of consciousness" and "psi." Then you are definitely implying the conclusion of what these phenomena are, specifically a product of the mind.

My field of study is survival research, and while my working hypothesis is the Survival Hypothesis, I have learned to expect any survival-related research done under the banner of parapsychology (specifically academically trained scientists) to be directed toward discovering what the biological brain has to do with observed phenomena. I benefit from this research, but it is a problem for my field of study to have it bunched in with psi functioning research.

Statements by notables in the field, such as Charles Tart's comments at [8] are not useful and clearly show an ignorance of the subject. Also, the super-psi model was specifically designed to account for survival-like experiences in terms of echoes of the past, rather than survival of sentient personality. I have posted a report from a 2006 PA conference attendee which echoes my point. [9]

You all can include what you want in this article, as I clearly have a conflict of interest and will not attempt to edit. But you do no service for the reader by implying that parapsychology is studying Survival. It is studying the functioning of the human mind.

Finally, Thouless, R. H. (1942) is an antique reference that is probably not on the Internet or in public libraries. How can the reader examine the reference to see why you are calling survival research psi? The PA reference is available, and even though the survival reference is clearly an afterthought, I can at east examine the reference. Tom Butler 23:28, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

What about people like David Fontana? He can't be the only one within the parapsychological community who studies survival from more than a brain/mind perspective. –––Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 23:45, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

David is a good example of a field researcher who has apparently found the Survival Hypothesis better answers his observations. He did a lot of work with direct observation of physical mediumship, such as the Scole group. Of course there are others, such as the Montague Keen ( [10] ) and Peter Fenwick ( [11] ). Gary Schwartz is a good example of a researcher who is almost exclusively conducting laboratory (induced) experiments, but if you look at the theory of everything he supports, he is closer to the super-psi model than to the Survival Hypothesis. That is a good thing, because it is important for his academic credibility that he does not decide up-front about the implications of his work. (I should say here that I excuse my advocacy of the Survival Hypothesis based on the need for a context on which to predict experimental targets. It works for me, but even so, we must be careful not to take the hypothesis too dogmatically or without critical inspection. Let the evidence lead.)

The difference I noted between Schwartz and Fontana is critical. The field of parapsychology is dominated by those who insist that field research is entirely too unreliable to be even considered. That makes Fontana in the minority, and more akin to the naturalists of old than to a Dean Radin. Tom Butler 00:56, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Better see also list

I think we can get a better see also list going. I'm a fan of this style of list as I've seen it on a few featured articles. Suggestions for list items? --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 19:30, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I think the kind of list style you're advocating might lead to disputes over what falls under certain categories. I think a simple general list would be easier to maintain. VanTucky ^(talk) 19:32, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, it doesn't have to be divided into categories. I'm just saying comma delimited versus bulleted. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 20:51, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Well I certainly agree in that case. VanTucky ^(talk) 20:54, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Go ahead with it. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 17:04, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I was looking for list item suggestions. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 17:49, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't know. Come to think of it, we probably don't even need a "see also" due to the "Parapsychology" navigation template at the bottom serving the same purpose. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 18:02, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

True that. I'll delete it and see if anyone notices : ) --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 19:52, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Parapsychology Today Redux

The first few statements in the Parapsychology today section appear to be unsourced. The first statement ("Contemporary parapsychological research has waned considerably") might very well be true for North America, but it not true in Europe where new labs are opening and parapsychologists are finding themselves very employable. The second statement ("Early research was considered inconclusive, and parapsychologists were faced with strong opposition from their academic colleagues") is too vague. Which research? Considered inconclusive by whom? Which parapsychologists? Which colleagues? And the third statement is fine but requires a source. I think that the whole section needs a complete rewrite, but I'm going to allow other editors the opportunity to fix this (or comment) before I start slicing and dicing. --Annalisa Ventola _{(Talk | Contribs)} 22:19, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

The first statement is a paraphrasing of "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." [12]. The second and third statements are paraphrased a little, but almost verbatim from Melton, J. G. (1996). Parapsychology. In Encyclopedia of Occultism & Parapsychology. The sourcing got lost in all the shuffling and the texts have changed somewhat, but they still match the source pretty closely. A lot has been mentioned in these talk pages about vagueness, but most encyclopedias are written in an abstract style. The parapsychologists in the source refers to parapsychologists in general, same with colleagues. It goes into more detail about the concentration of opposition that led to the forming of CSICOP. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 01:23, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I just added the sources, reluctantly. Reluctantly because it's like what I was talking about before, every sentence ends up with a number, eventhough the numbers sometimes applies to a whole paragraph or parts of it. In that way I miss the APA style. *Sigh* --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 01:26, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Scope

What happened to all the other topics from the PA FAQ? ESP, Bio-PK, NDE's, OBE's, and Poltergeists have all been struck from the list in this article. Is there a reason for this? --Annalisa Ventola _{(Talk | Contribs)} 22:25, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

What are you referring to exactly? Wikidudeman ^(talk) 21:23, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Ready for FA nomination?

This article has been stable the past 2 weeks as well as this talk page. Is this article ready for FA nomination again? Opinions? Wikidudeman ^(talk) 13:00, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

It's come a long way and has been cleaned up considerably. I wouldn't say it's perfect, but I'd support an FA nomination. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 14:09, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Who else would support an FA nomination? Wikidudeman ^(talk) 14:35, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

What? I'm not good enough? : ) j/k --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 15:26, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I just want to make sure everyone would support prior to nominating it again. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 15:26, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

FA nomination

I've nominated this article to be a Featured Article. Please see the top of the talk page for the link to the nomination. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikidudeman (talk • contribs) 18:52, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Booyah! Featured Article Status!

Congratulations to everyone, This article has reached FA status. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 20:58, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Criticism of experimental results

The entire fraud/criticism of experimental results/Selection bias and meta-analysis section is not from a NPOV. It presents common 'skeptical' arguments against parapsychology but no refutation of those arguments by parapsychologists, thus giving the unwary reader the impression that parapsychology's critics have had the last word on the subject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nmonster (talk • contribs) 05:20, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

This is a reference work, not a battlefield for parapsychologists and their critics. Thus, detailing the attributed criticism of the field is an essential part of being a complete reference work on the field. Placing refutations directly after every statement is something the Wikipedia policy of WP:NPOV directly admonishes us not to do. Presenting the attributed opinion of an individual is not a statement of baldfaced fact, only an outline what critics say so that readers unfamiliar with the subject can understand it. VanTucky ^Talk 03:42, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

The parapsychology debate is endless. It can't be covered in WP. Please remember to sign your name like this ~~~~. ——Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 04:09, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Nmonster, you may notice that the research section doesn't contain the criticism that could be in there either. Neutrality was reached in this article by a consensus decision some time ago to place research (parapsychologist view) in one section, and criticism in its own section. We tried the rebuttal format and it didn't work. The article was a never-ending point-counter-point and fights over who gets the last word. Now no one gets the last word. Each word gets a section. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 09:33, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I disagree that no one gets the last word. The article's format, in my opinion, gives critics the last word, since the criticism section is virtually at the end of the article. As I said, this would give the unwary reader the (incorrect, in my view) impression that critics have somehow refuted all of parapsychology's claims and/or all evidence for paranormal phenomena. The article is too heavily steeped in a strictly mechanistic, materialist vision of science.

Furthermore, I notice that the article on the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry (commendably) presents criticisms of that organization, but then concludes with a refutation of those criticisms by the late Carl Sagan. So why can't the parapsychology article contain a similar, concluding "Rebuttal To General Criticism"? Nmonster 05:46, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

There's several different ways to handle criticism in an article. You can find examples in the essay WP:Criticism. Some articles prefer to do it throughout the article. Here a consensus was reached to go with the split sections. We did try the Position / Criticism / Rebuttal format and it simply didn't work. It became Position / Criticism / Rebuttal / Rebuttal to the Rebuttal / Rebuttal to the Rebuttal of the Rebuttal... and so on. It was a never ending trying to get the last word in. If the current format isn't perfect, it's a least better. Other articles may not suffer the same problems as this topic, which is pretty complex. For example, CSI may have a position, that position may have its criticisms, and there may be rebuttals to that criticism. It's pretty simple. By comparison, parapsychology has several positions, several criticisms, several rebuttals, and several responses to those rebuttals, and endless loops and variations. It's not a split of points of view like CSI. It's more like diced points of view. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 20:31, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

That seems to be a problem with the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry article. The James Randi article suffers from about the same problem. ——Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 06:22, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

And speaking of Randi, why take up space with a picture of him? He is not a parapsychologist and merely a shrill critic of the field. Nmonster 16:24, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Firstly because pictures help the article be more lively and fun to read. Secondly because he's notable as far as topic goes. Notable in the context of criticism of the topic. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 16:31, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

To me having Randi's picture is another manifestation of the inherent bias of the article against parapsychology. So much for the NPOV. Nmonster 05:06, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Well then why don't you hunt up some pictures of parapsychologists mentioned in the article, and put them in? You'll have to find some that meet WP's restrictions on copyright, but it should be possible. ——Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 05:20, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I will gladly do that, of course they'll probably be deleted by whatever powers-that-be that have also removed the banners I put up questioning the neutrality of this article and sections thereof.

Nmonster 05:53, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm one of the "powers that be." And boy, am I, you better believe it!!! Anyway, as long as it meets WP rules on copyright, it should be fine. You might even find some in other articles. If you could find free pics of Radin, Hyman, Charles Honorton and Daryl Bem, Robert G. Jahn, Ian Stevenson, Russell Targ... people like that. Well, we couldn't put all of them in, but 2 or 3 should be able to make it in before the page gets hard to load. Take it easy and learn how the place works. It's extremely complicated, but contention can be resolved. You'll be a power that be in no time. ——Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 06:57, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

The powers to be gives you permission to add a good image of a parapsychologist to the article. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 12:55, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with all above. We can't have constant criticism/response/criticism/response in a never ending cycle. They need to be separated as they are now. The article explains what parapsychology is, what parapsychologists use to study it, the types of studies done, then it explains the criticism of it. All neatly separated in their own areas for the reader to understand what it is, how it works, and what critics say. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 12:37, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Nicely put. ——Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 23:27, 1 October 2007 (UTC)