Talk:Parapsychology/Archive 16

Archive 10

←

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

→

Archive 20

First Sentence of first para

"Parapsychology is a discipline that seeks to investigate the existence and causes of psychic abilities and life after death using the scientific method." This sentence is wrong and does not describe the topics of parapsychology. The exact definition was coined by the psychologist Max Dessoir in 1889: „If one ... characterizes by para- something going beyond or besides the ordinary, than one could perhaps call the phenomena that step outside the usual process of the inner life parapsychical, and the science dealing with them parapsychology. The word is not nice, yet in my opinion it has the advantage to denote a hitherto unknown fringe area between the average and the pathological states; however, more than the limited value of practical usefulness such neologisms do not demand." Parapschology investigates psychological phenomena, which are not pathologic, but which are also not phenomena of everyday's life. Therefore, it should be mentioned in the first sentence, that parapsychology is not limited alone to psychic phenomena but has a much larger scopus. Otherwise, one supports the fallacy that parapsychology deals only with psi phenomena, and so on. Yagosaga (talk) 12:12, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

You're describing the origins of the term -- very interesting BTW, so how about a reference?? The article is however about the scientific (or pseudo-scientific) discipline of exploring the "fringe area" that Dessoir describes. What areas, in your opinion, does the lead sentence overlook? --nemonoman (talk) 16:51, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

The problem - or actually, error - with this definition is not based on its origin. There are two erroneous limitations to this definition that arise from the use of the phrases "psychic abilities" and "life after death". Parapsychology is not limited to conceiving of psi phenomena as the expression of "abilities" - which implies (on the psychological use of this term) that there are people with greater or lesser skill in "telepathy," that there are innate levels of capacity of the same, and that they can be trained, and so on. The conception of psi phenomena as fundamental to ordinary psychological experience (and hence no peculiar ability) has been long and widely expressed in the field (e.g., by H. H. Price, Thouless, Burt, J. Carpenter), and this view is implicit in the practice - such as by J. B. Rhine - of testing psi hypotheses with unselected participants. "Life after death" is similarly only one of several hypotheses for phenomena such as mediumistic statements, poltergeist activity, reincarnation memories - and not by far the most popular way of understanding such phenomena within parapsychology, as reference to info on these particular topics should show. In any case, such "survival" related questions are arguably not a major issue within parapsychology; e.g., J. B. Rhine considered that the question had to be set aside as untestable. More accurately, less restrictively and more representatively, parapsychology can be defined as research into acquiring information from, and imparting information to, the environment, without dependence on recognized sensory channels and motor instruments. Rodgarton (talk) 03:05, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

'para' from para psychology

Actually now they says that the word 'para' from 'para'psychology was originated from Greek which means 'alongside'. The famous spirituality of the Hindu religion says,in 'Sanskrit' the divine language the word 'para' means to be 'The other' or 'the other dimension' and it could be 'beyond the death'. As parapsychology is related to spirituality we have to consider this too. We should guess that there were some connections between Indian and Greek ideologies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.196.129.86 (talk) 09:16, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Goofs: On "many scientists" regarding parapsychology as "pseudoscience" because of nil conclusive evidence

"Many scientists regard the discipline as pseudoscience because parapsychologists continue investigation although no one has demonstrated conclusive evidence of psychic abilities in more than a century of research." -from the Wikipedia article Parapsychology.

Regarding the above statment, if you don't investigate something, how are you supposed to find evidence for it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.171.131.199 (talk) 23:41, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

It's not a goof, but it could perhaps be better worded to make it easier to understand. The point made is that 100+ years of research haven't produced evidence that convinces scientists that there is any such thing as "psychic ability". Therefore many scientists think that the subject probably doesn't exist, and therefore that continuing that line of research will not build our understanding of the world, which is what sciences are for. For example, I could create a science of searching for invisible pixies. If, in a hundred years time I still hadn't uncovered any convincing evidence of the existence of invisible pixies, then many scientists might call my investigations pseudoscience. Even if I was adhering strictly to scientific methods, the failure to demonstrate convincingly that there is a subject to study means my research might be perceived as a "pretend" science or pseudoscience, not a real one that progresses human knowledge. Note that this is not my position, it's from the "Popular psychology: an encyclopedia" source that is cited. But it's fairly logical, and certainly not a goof. Ryan Paddy (talk) 02:12, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Goofiness comes from an erroneous requirement for science to be a tool for decisively proving the existence or non-existence of something. It's actually a quite poor, slow and rough tool for achieving this; such arguments are best conducted by lawyers and philosophers, if not mystics and clerics. Science well informs us about relationships and conditions. Yes, it can inform us about the likelihood of the existence of something - human-created climate change, life on mars, bacteria, foxes in Tasmania, and so on - but we can not expect it to give us decisive information, to the end of all days, and to all reasonable people's satisfaction, about any particular topic, particularly those that are taboo, shrouded in superstition, etc.. What we achieve by continuing to scientifically investigate so-called "psychic phenomena" is various theories for their explanation - classical-psychological (cognitive distortions, motivational biases, etc.), as well as psiological (or parapsychological) (referring to advanced waves, or some interpretation of quantum mechanics, or some more obviously phenomenological concepts). Then we have several theories, from different frameworks, competing for explanation of the same data. That's all, and that's quite normative. It would be neat and proper to see Wikipedia's articles on the "parapsychological" simply reflect this competition in knowledge, by different theoretical frameworks and theories, rather than being a platform for the so-called skeptics and "believers" to have their shout about the phenomena in question - phenomena that, after thousands (!) of years of human observation, continue to be reported. (I have recently overhauled the article on precognition with this principle in mind, shedding it of the "believer" vs. "skeptic" framework, and, by all accounts, to date, this appears to be a satisfactory approach.)

(undent) In an article about parapsychology, whose proponents claim it to be a science, it would be misleading not to describe the doubts about that status that many scientists hold. Those doubts are well-cited in the article. We cannot push a very real and prominant discourse pertaining to parapsychology under the rug. We can only report what reliable sources are saying. As for my personal opinion, there is no denying the widespread and long term belief in psychic powers. But that anecdotal evidence has no bearing on whether their study is a science, in the absence of scientific evidence of their existence. Likewise, belief in unseen creatures is widespread and long term. Even today there are believed to be trolls in Iceland, taniwha in New Zealand, monsters in Scottish lochs, and so forth. However, if I spent a century looking for scientific evidence of taniwha, and failed to find anything that convinced the scientific community of their existence, then I wouldn't be surprised to hear them calling my continued studies a pseudoscience. Science cannot prove that taniwha or psychic abilities do not exist (their existence is not falsifiable), but the scientific community can and does raise doubts about the validity of ongoing "scientific" study of a subject whose existence has eluded proof for so long. Ryan Paddy (talk) 22:44, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

In terms of the comparison to precognition, I would note that parapsychology is a field of study, whereas precognition is a subject of study. They would naturally be treated differently. I think the approach you've taken to precognition of bundling the sceptical explanations under "Psychological" explanations is relatively fair, although I'd note that the article now seems to be missing a major explanation suggested by sceptics: fraud. But here on parapsychology, we are dealing with a field of study that claims to be a science, not with a phenomenon that can be explained by psychological or parapsychological approaches. This article will naturally deal with how the parapsychology field is regarded, its methods, its histories, its controversies, etc. It's not really about the psychic abilities themselves, it's about a discipline that studies them. What is your suggestion for changing it? Ryan Paddy (talk) 23:18, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

"has eluded proof for so long" - please, this refers to a fabulous, story-book notion of science, as if holy science can prove the existence of a phenomenon, or veridicality of a concept, in a manner that sets all the grey-heads nodding in a panel. Spare us such antiquity! The question concerns whether Wikipedia is to play upfront host to socio-epistemological conflicts, or to keep from bow to stern a concern to represent all knowledge - scientifically acquired, as best all good folks may - equally. (Oh - if you wish to promote fraud in parapsychology as a special topic, you will need to create an original article on how it is more grossly represented within and more grossly occluded by the field. The topic is represented in the reference to Soal in the article concerned, where it is relevant, to its evidentially limited value.) Rodgarton 13:20, 5 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rodgarton (talk • contribs)

I agree with Ryan Paddy on this one. This article does a pretty good job of offending everybody, which seems to me a good indication of its NPOV, and the lead sets the tone. This is a discipline with a lot of controversies, and the lead paragraph practically requires some reflection of that. Ryan Paddy has reasonably parsed the distinction between a field of study and a subject of study, and has identified how and why the lead reasonably applies in this case. --Nemonoman (talk) 15:26, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

How defeatist! Wikipedia achieves a balanced and informative approach by offending everybody!? I trust that its editors can do much better than that, and not put so much faith in old-school adversarialism. Rodgarton 14:44, 6 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rodgarton (talk • contribs)

We have at least one excellent reliable source saying that this is not a story-book notion of science. The Luis A. Cordón source, a well-received book on psychology-related subjects by an associate psychology professor both makes the point and characterises it as a common perspective among scientists. Our personal opinions on the subject, while being an amusing diversion, are not actually relevant to editing the article. Relevant reliable sources discussing a contraversial aspect of this subject must be suitably reflected in the article.Ryan Paddy (talk) 03:48, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

As it stands, this section on defining parapsychology as a pseudoscience is not representative of the issue. It gives extensive cover to only one side of the debate, and from sources (Alcock) that are themselves controversial (see Palmer, 1983, Zetetic Scholar, 11; Thalbourne, 1985, JSPR, 53; and Child, 1985, American Psychologist, 40, for the evidential unreliability of Alcock as a source of information or opinion on psi research). I will take time to amend the error by giving a more balanced and authoritative representation of the ideas here. In the meantime, see Truzzi, (1982). J. B. Rhine and pseudoscience: Some zetetic reflections on parapsychology. In K. R. Rao (Ed.), J. B. Rhine: On the frontiers of science (pp. 177-191). Jefferson, NC, US: McFarland. Rodgarton 14:37, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

An added question - How does reference to a certain Assistant Professor of Psychology establish that the hope for science to provide consensus on questions of truth, of the existence or not of some phenomenon, esp. those of the taboo and culturally maligned kind, is not a "story-book", fabulous notion of science? This type of referenced argument reminds me of the "Noted observers" approach to establishing psi phenomena - that so many Nobelians, Fellows of the Royal Society, knighted scholars, leading professors of so many fields, genii of jurisprudence, head-horsemen of the Kaiser's cavalry, etc., have long attested to the evidentiality of psi phenomena on the basis of their personal observations in their everyday lives, and/or their academic investigations; and that, accordingly, us underlings ought to nod in dutiful concert with them. But we know - or can at least suspect - that such observers are somewhat if no less prone to "errors" of observation as are we underlings, and that their research can be contested as much as any other fellow's. The basic point is that scientific truth is never as prettily concise as any argument referring to "the consensus of scientific opinion" fantasizes it to be, especially when this is anchored on the surmise of one or another scholar dealing with a taboo and culturally maligned class of (ostensible) phenomena. Science teaches us that knowledge is quixotic - it begets doubt, and doubt begets it. This might sound like a grand ambition for an article on parapsychology to represent; but I submit that it can be easily done if one simply sets aside the old-school adversarialism, and speaks from a certain humility about, rather than faith-based notion of, science. Rodgarton 06:43, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

In terms of my personal opinion, I wasn't saying that science can prove the non-existence of something. In fact, I said the opposite about psychic abilities and invisible creatures: their existance is not falsifiable. However, scientists do form opinions based on lack of convincing evidence. And they form opinions of which areas of study are pseudoscience. That's all that the part of the article you object to presents, the opinion of many scientists. It's relevant to a discipline that seeks recognition as a science. Ryan Paddy (talk) 03:48, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

If the question boils down to "the opinion of many scientists", then let us have some objective information - from surveys of such professional opinion - on the issue, rather than some few people's personal surmise. I shall pump this section up with such data a-plenty. Rodgarton 14:51, 6 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rodgarton (talk • contribs)

On the subject of fraud as an explanation for precognition I wasn't thinking of research fraud, but rather the sceptical position that people such as telephone psychics may commit everyday professional fraud. It would be one explanation of the fact that a lot of people believe in the existence of precognition if there were a lot of people making a living by tricking them into believing in it. It's a variation of the psychology position, but a distinct one. Ryan Paddy (talk) 03:48, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Telephone psychics? I thought we were talking about parapsychology, and trusted that the proponent of this argument would not shift the ground.^{added 8/8/09}
In any case, I have been inspired by this fellow's note on fraud to add a section under "Explanation" in that article - Precognition - that gives a round-up of explanations of the "Methodological" type, which includes fraud and more basic/specific issues. I consider that these are ways in which all authoritative POVs can be represented in Wikipedia, in an informative manner, without it being exploited as a polemical platform, which so many of the articles on this and like topics presently do, and which ultimately divest the article of any face validity or reliability, regardless of what useful info it contains. Rodgarton 14:37, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I think it's a reasonable approach, more suited to some articles than others. My only comment is that you'll have to be careful of not giving undue weight to fringe theories. Not all ideas have equal credibility in the real world, and wikipedia has guidelines regarding how we describe subjects with opposing theories of uneven credibility. That could be approached by explaining who adheres to each explanation. At the moment, the lead for precognition gives the impression that parapsychological and psychological explanations for experiences of precognition have equal credibility in the real world. Which is a long way from reality. Where a subject is subject to scientific research, the general position of the scientific community on that subject should be made clear. It feels rather obfuscated at the moment. Ryan Paddy (talk) 20:40, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Just which one is a fringe theory these days? The classical-mechanically conformative and derived theory of Feinberg, the conventional-interpretative quantum-mechanical theory of Walker? They have each, BTW, expressed experimentally testable hypotheses, that have, indeed, been the subject of ongoing research; with, of course, findings that are keenly contested in their interpretation, which has led to more research, and so on, in the normative manner of scientific praxis. The days are gone when you can freely drub one or another theory as fringe, and another as conventional, with the soft-speaking pose of neutrality. Rodgarton 08:48, 7 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rodgarton (talk • contribs)

Please point me to the irrefutable and objectively representative and final "general position of the scientific community". Where is my ticket to these theosophical Secret Chiefs, high away in Shangri-La, who, you lead me to trust, presently hold all the keys to eternal truth? Rodgarton 08:43, 7 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rodgarton (talk • contribs)

My dear Rodgarton: Before you start dosing your messages with large dollops of sarcasm, may I suggest you have a look at the archives and reconsider. The editors of this article have each got a POV, but we have made a big effort to keep the article as neutral as possible. RyanPaddy has been one of the most steady hands in this regard. We may not all agree with his conclusions. I don't. But he and other active editors who brought this article to Featured Article quality made extraordinary efforts to find wording that was reasonable, comprehensive, inclusive, and neutral. Out of respect for that dedication, I'd appreciate if you'd dial up the civility just a notch. --Nemonoman (talk) 13:12, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Sarcasm? How the Brethren shy away from debate by accusing the discussant of social slights, and then they appeal to historical ignorance as short-cuts toward their way. I have taken much stock of the well anointed archives, and my comments are informed thereby, and with respect to the social sensitivities to which these appeal. Pray, do not avoid the core issues by appealing to your history, and dubious mores. I recognize feigned neutrality when I see it, and we should all be aware of such mischief. The article in question, as I have found it, is a poor expression of contemporary knowledge, and of the contemporary quality of discourse in the relevant fields. I choose not to enshrine adversarialism as the key to informativeness, as Wikipedia editors on psiological topics evidently suppose is the proper approach. I trust that all genuinely fair-minded persons in this cohort will work toward a more informative and empirically responsible approach. Rodgarton 17:12, 7 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rodgarton (talk • contribs)

The article doesn't "enshrine" the debate over the science status of parapsychology, it just describes it using the best reliable sources we can find. If you have better (or equally good) sources about the debate, especially recent ones, please share. Let's get down to the substance. What does your Jefferson 2009 source say on the subject, in short? Ryan Paddy (talk) 20:27, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, I'll agree to avoid the issues, dismount and unsaddle my high-horse, and get down to received and reliable opinion. Rodgarton 06:54, 9 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rodgarton (talk • contribs)

Contributions to other disciplines: New section

This topic is brought up within the "pseudo-science" section - by reference to the surmise of the controversial commentator on psi research, J. Alcock - so I considered it was useful to survey the information thereon. The relevant information appears to naturally fit as a sub-section within the "Research" section. There are some surprising statements, perhaps - most notably the origin of "randomization" within parapsychology (or rather, pre-Rhinean psychical research), and so on. Upon reflection, such observations should not be so surprising given the continual demands upon parapsychological research, throughout the history of its conduct, to be stringently expressive of scientific values, in, arguably, a more formidable manner than is imposed by commentators on the study of less "taboo" phenomena. Hard stricture and close scrutiny, it seems, on the scientific investigation of such phenomena, beget general scientific favours. How else should it be?
A question of organization: I first considered that this section should follow the reference to Alcock in the pseudo-science section. However, this information is so specific in fact and broad in scope that doing so would represent something of a tight and partisan squeeze; and, also, there are several other topics that could merit explication under the "pseudoscience" section (such as what really is the opinion of other academics to the field), such that, eventually, this "pseudo-science" section would become lop-sidedly weighted, disproportionately and partisanly, with too much information. Accordingly, I have (or should just about to) add a short reference to this section following the citation of Alcock's comments.
I should not like it to be considered that I have written this section in a purely pro-parapsychology, partisan push - I wish merely to redress the imbalance between the subjective and objective on this issue, the personal versus more representative, noting the facts of what is otherwise one-sidedly opined in this article. Rodgarton 07:37, 9 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rodgarton (talk • contribs)

This is a nice idea for a section. Ryan Paddy (talk) 03:57, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Surveys of academic opinion: New section

I have introduced this section - as promised, and as not contested, above - in the interest of providing readers with objective information from representative surveys, rather than simply serving them the few selected references to one of another assistant professor or discredited doctor who are presently represented, with a spacious paragraph or two, within this article. I am aware of several additional surveys - mostly of more selected populations of academics - that could be included here, but the findings are not dissimilar, and I trust that those cited are most representative. Doubtless some editors of these pages will be affronted by the fact that some of the surveys have been published in the Journal of Parapsychology, and they blankly dismiss all reports from this source. This merits a discussion in itself, which I will presently open. But let it for now be noted that these reports, being authored by Lucien Warner, come from a well-respected psychologist and opinion analysist; e.g., at the time of conducting these surveys, he authored several key psychological texts (e.g., Animal Motivation, 1931; Principles and Methods of Comparative Psychology, 1935); and he worked as the research director and V-P of the Opinion Research Corporation, Princeton, NJ; within the special services branch of the Bureau of Intelligence, US Office of War Information; and as associate director of research for Life magazine. He was also a Fellow of the AAAS, the APA, and so on (Source: Pleasants, H. (Ed.). (1964). Biographical dictionary of parapsychology. New York, NY, US: Helix). Given that, moreover, essences of his findings have been replicated by others, I suggest that there is no basis to be suspicious of the source, and that it is, on the contrary, as encyclopedically informative as any other article on this topic. The article published in the Zetetic Scholar concerns a journal founded and principally edited by University of Michigan sociologist of science M. Truzzi, a noted skeptic of parapsychology (one-time CSICOPS member, if memory serves me), and involves an article amply cited in an article by Child (1985) in the American Psychologist (an APA journal). Rodgarton 08:29, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

There should be some mention of the age of these surveys. The most recent is still over 25 years old in the late 70s/early 80s, in a period that is described elsewhere in this article as the peak of interest in PS. Have there been more recent surveys? Old opinion data should not be used to draw conclusions about current thinking. On that note, why is the timing of the last few surveys not mentioned? Ryan Paddy (talk) 03:55, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

The dates and progression of the surveys are described throughout. The surveys are specifically introduced as beginning from the inception of the field in the 1930s, and the final paragraph refers to what might be generalized over time, as well as research methods. The final two surveys mentioned are relatively contemporary with the last dated one - late '70s, so did not seem to require restatement of date; but this can be added. Naturally, "Old opinion data should not be used to draw conclusions about current thinking", but that is not claimed in presenting the data - it is representative and informative to survey the opinion over time, and, as the results indicate, these have not much shifted over time (or research methods, or professional populations sampled, apart from some unhappy psych's, as noted), and except in parapsychology's favour. I need to add some info from McClenon's 1982 survey as soon as I get my hands on it again, but am not aware of more recent surveys addressing the same questions and posed to the same professional populations; only those targeting general populations, psychology students, or parapsychologists (researchers, commentators) themselves. Perhaps, indeed, some info from them would be useful here. Rodgarton 05:03, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Sure. We just need to be clear it's old data, and ensure we don't extrapolate from it as that would be WP:OR. Ryan Paddy (talk) 05:10, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I should add that this line of research has been quite tight and self-referring, meaning that, since Warner's first study, the researchers have been careful to use the same questions each time, over the decades, so that trends could be identified. And they have indeed noted that there, for instance, there is surprisingly very little shift over time. The final paragraph provides these observations. Perhaps it might be useful to cite Wagner/Monnet and (I will check) McClenon in conclusion here, although how to repeat a foot-note without repeating its entry escapes me. Rodgarton 05:20, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

To cite the same reference twice, give the first ref tag a name like this: <ref name="ReferenceName" >Reference goes in here</ref> Then do later ref tags for the same citation like this: <ref name="ReferenceName" />. Need to be careful not to give the citation a name that's used elsewhere in the page, or it'll get confused. Ryan Paddy (talk) 00:42, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Given what I am encouraged to consider as editorial embellishments in presenting these data - necessary, it seemed, to provide the information in flowing sentences and paragraphs, and to tie it all up - I have returned to the primary sources, and overhauled this information into a point-wise format. The sources are now referred to and described in a unique section, and thereafter follow the results for each main question. I have also added the reference for McClenon's study from the one in the JParapsychology to his book, where there is some more expansive treatment, and which is no doubt more accessible. I have NOT noted in great detail the sub-group differences in the college professor or AAAS studies; that seems to be getting into the detail of a thesis or personal article than an encyclopedic one; I yet give some note to it in the concluding paragraph. P.S. This seems to be now information of a quantity and quality that is not found in corporately or privately published materials, and hope that it enhances somewhat the informative value of Wikipedia's contribution to knowledge of this field, and attitudes towards it, while permitting easy addition of new information as it comes to hand. Maybe there are locals who would like to help to conduct a web-based study .... Rodgarton 09:32, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I note a wondrous and pretty change of format, but a doubt-worthy selection of certain responses. Lo, where is the discussion? All may be glad to see the info in a summary table, not taking up so much white-space. N'erless, the questions are now wrongly represented, esp. "Do you deny ..." etc. was only one option among several to the question as to belief; these are proportions encompassing those in answer to the prior question, not a separate question. This can be readily cleared up. Three cheers for the format, click collect. Rodgarton 17:46, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I felt there was an awful lot of information, granularity and subtle distinctions in this section, and it was not consistent with other sections in the article that provide a rough-cut overview of a topic area. I created a new page Surveys of academic opinion regarding parapsychology and moved the info there, and retained the questions that were asked and answered by all survey groups. I believe the point is made reasonably well now without overkill. --Nemonoman (talk) 17:57, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

"Not consistent with other sections in the article that provide a rough-cut overview of a topic area" - does this not mean more subjectively appraised and carefully selected, and less objectively measured and represented, opinion? So we have a nicer format, but, instead of blankly represented objective opinion, we now have a finely picked Goebbels-typed selection. Wikipedia is increasingly appearing, to my eyes, to be no encyclopedia at all, but only a siphon of information that can be twisted to represent the most shrill opinion. I will better expend my energies communicating this travesty rather than contributing to this twisted forum. Yet another source of exact information gone. Rodgarton 18:14, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

It's only a matter of time before someone starts calling someone else a Nazi. Every fact about parapsychology need not be included in the overview article. If you think some critical facts have been omitted, summarize them. The granularity exists in the new article for anyone interested to find quickly. PS I don't much appreciate being called the Goebbels of this section. Consider having a glance at WP:Civility.--Nemonoman (talk) 18:37, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

and only a matter of desperation to take up the most emotive of retorts. You offer no justification in your reply, only an assertion, and then a challenge. Sufficient for Wikipedia, but not to the real world, to which I return, pleased to see you and other WP editors picking self-congratulatingly through the debris thereof. Rodgarton 20:56, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

To your question does this not mean more subjectively appraised and carefully selected, and less objectively measured and represented, opinion?, my answer is: No. I selected the 3 questions which were asked in all the surveys you cited --and I assumed in good faith the questions asked were indeed identical, not similar (which would be a rare set of survey questions indeed). The table shows the same data for those questions as you cited them, laid out in readable fashion instead of a confusing list of bullet points. This is not 'subjectively appraised.' Carefully selected? No. The selection criteria I used should be obvious--questions asked of different groups over time. Less objectively measured? Those are your measurements, which I assume in good faith to be true. Also: There's a nice big link to the complete data you presented.

An inconsiderate writer throws the entire bucket of facts into a paragraph and assumes that the job is done. I have worked over much worse prose than yours and made it more readable -- for example when I was the assistant editor of Journal of Parapsychology. You could look it up. I'm glad you're pleased that I managed to pick through 'the debris', but that is your description of your writing, not mine. And the only person doing much self-congratulation here appears to be you. I'm just doing my best to make the article clear to a first-time reader, and satisfying to someone familiar with the subject. --Nemonoman (talk) 21:19, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, chill-pill time. I did actually hope that someone could tabulate the sprawling information I offered, as a first draft, into some more readily appreciable form. I wish I'd added that sentence. Then I got worried about how the questions were represented. They seemed to twist the offering of blank information into partisan poses, which I am perhaps Uber-sensitive to on this site. Things that may yet be discussed. I retire for now from the heady confrontation of being encyclopedic; it is quite a heavy art to perfect, by words and tones. Please excuse the slander; although it seems you are all used to it. Rodgarton 00:56, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I feebly accept your feeble apology. But if this is how you respond when someone does what you hope, I hate to think how you'll respond if you don't get your way. This article is a good example of persons with a wide variety of differing views working in collaboration. A lot of us have had to cowboy up to get to a place of cooperation and consensus. I invite you to give it a try. --Nemonoman (talk) 02:31, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Can we move the bullet pointed info into the table too, along with the ref tags? Bullet points are to be avoided where possible per WP:MOS. Thanks for your work summarising the data Nemonoman, the table makes the chronology and the data very readable. Ryan Paddy (talk) 03:38, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

RyanP-I can't picture what you're suggesting? You must concentrate...Concentrate...CONCENTRATE. Perhaps the image in your mind will become more clear in mine. At this point my reception is well below chance. --Nemonoman (talk) 04:22, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Copy that. Stand by... package sent. Over. Ryan Paddy (talk) 05:07, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Change to table

OK, I changed the survey bullets to a table.

I found the wiki style sheet table guidelines, and changed both to that style. I like my previous style better with borders, and may change back to that, Wikistyles be damned.

I multiplied out the survey basis x the response rate % to establish a sample size. In doing this I found that there was no sample size listed for the APA new members. The article cited isn't online; only an abstract that shows poll question %s, not the sample size. if Rodgarton has the article, perhaps he can supply.

I'm not sure that table vs bullets is an improvement, however.--Nemonoman (talk) 13:15, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I made some style adjustments to give the tables borders. It helps a little. --Nemonoman (talk) 14:07, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I think our transmission was well below chance. I meant merging the data into result table you'd already made (i.e. one table would show both things like the number of respondants and the results). I'll try updating it the way I meant sometime and you can see what you think. Ryan Paddy (talk) 23:09, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

No, I definitely got your transmission OK. When I tried adding the full names of the respondents, the refs, the sample size, etc., to the results table, what I got was a table about 1500 pixels (2 monitor pages) wide and a mess to boot. One's mental image of how things might look is always subject to the occasional vagaries of reality.--Nemonoman (talk) 23:20, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I could combine the two tables; in effect one on top of the other. I don't really know any way to make the ultrawide table acceptable to the average size monitor (1024pixels).--Nemonoman (talk) 23:21, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

How's the version I've just tried? We may need to spell out APA and AAAS in the preceding paragraph in full, as I've straight to acronyms to save space. It seems to compact horizontally well enough, the second line just wraps. Ryan Paddy (talk) 02:18, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I took your good idea and made it EVEN BETTER!!! (he said hopefully). --Nemonoman (talk) 15:03, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

The title line might be a bit cramped now and the wrapping a bit distracting, but I'm not fussed enough to continue trying to improve it further. Ryan Paddy (talk) 23:00, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Name dropping?

I'm bemused by the first paragraph of this section, which starts "The study of parapsychology has interested practitioners of many diverse disciplines..." While I get the point that there are prominent academics who have looked favourably on parapsychology, I'm having trouble seeing the value of the current content of the paragraph, which is essentially a list of names. It doesn't give their positions on parapsychology, doesn't indicate their reasons for those positions, and doesn't give context to their positions (e.g. when was it, how did they come about, and have they changed?). Also, it terms of WP:NPOV, it solely mentions people who were apparently favourable to PS, and doesn't discuss those who were sceptical of it. Which might be okay if that was the point of the section, but it's supposed to be about opinion in general. A long and equally pointless list of people who criticise parapsychology could be made. The current title suggests the section is about surveys, which the first paragraph has nothing to do with. My feeling is that the paragraph should be removed, which is unfortunate because of the work that has gone into the citations, but I can't see where this content should belong in the article in its current form. Ryan Paddy (talk) 02:49, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm with you on all counts. Suppose we add a section like "Noted proponents"? I suppose some bright boy or girl might then find some cites for "Noted opponents". We might take a little heat in the interim. But it is a nice, cited list, and it should be put someplace -- just not where it is now, in my opinion and apparently yours also. --Nemonoman (talk) 15:06, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Agree that the paragraph is a problem. It's gushingly promotional rather than neutral and informative, and this is even after we've taken out some of the WP:PEACOCK language. Are lists of endorsees (whether celebrity or academic) encyclopedic inform about a topic? I don't think so. It's all the more important with this being a Featured Article, which can be stripped of its featured status if it isn't neutral. MartinPoulter (talk) 16:06, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps this wants to be a List of persons who promoted parapyschology? Or a [[Category:Persons who promoted parapsychology]]? --Nemonoman (talk) 17:26, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

We already have [[Category:parapsychologists]]. I think that's enough. Trying to shoehorn people into pro- and anti- camps, when people change over time and when parapsychology contains multiple issues, seems a pointless and unachievable exercise. MartinPoulter (talk) 18:08, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I can understand reluctance to keep this info in the article itself, but it is cited material and notable because of the persons involved. I'm not prepared to throw the baby out with the bathwater. If someone gets bold and deletes it, please be kind enough to preserve a copy on the talk page as is recommended for significant deletions. It might not yet be cooked, but there's been a lot of work applied, and there's some significant promise in there. It should not simply be thrown out. --Nemonoman (talk) 21:11, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Here's the removed paragraph:

The study of parapsychology has interested practitioners of many diverse disciplines, some of them prominent in their fields. These include Nobel laureates Charles Richet, Henri Bergson and Brian Josephson, Fellows of the Royal Society including its president Sir William Crookes and Sir Oliver Lodge, and philosophers including Henry Sidgwick, C. D. Broad, H. H. Price and C. J. Ducasse. Investigators and members of the professional research associations have included scientists and scholars such as Sir William Barrett, the Curies, Augustus de Morgan, and Sir Alister Hardy; psychologists William James, William McDougall, Sigmund Freud, Gardner Murphy and Ulric Neisser; and well-known authors and other artists including Mark Twain and J. B. Priestley.

Ryan Paddy (talk) 22:58, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Context to statistics simply bemuses? Why not work on the context rather than bluntly censor it? Many of the links provide the info desired; and then there are citations. I see it is quite appropriate in this article to have lashings of unquantified opinion, by controversial commentators and tricksters known for little else but their antagonism to psi research, force-fed all over this article, but one sentence or two that qualitatively represents some opinion to the contrary, from those noted for independent achievements, is quickly pooed upon. I had not thought this paragraph could be construed as "name-dropping," especially when it was countered by a plea to quantitative assessment; but, naturally, given that this article, by apparent tradition, is a polemical communication, from top to bottom, censorial antagonism is to be fully expected. Rodgarton 16:04, 22 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rodgarton (talk • contribs)

Please read Ryanpaddy's reasoning about deleting this paragraph again. At a certain point, the WP:notability that a certain person believed or did not believe begins to diminish, if it was there to begin with.

Deleting this paragraph does not harm the article, and I am confident that it was done for NPOV and Notablity reasons only, not to enforce some anti-psi agenda. I can't say the same for other recent edits, however. You're not paranoid if they're really out to get you. --Nemonoman (talk) 19:02, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Please do not presume that I have not read and accommodated the reasoning behind the complaint in my subsequent appraisals. I trusted that I addressed each of the substantive points in reply. The proper question, on the contrary, could be why no attention is given to my points in further reply, apart from a blanket censure to "go back to the original source." But I go back to the blackboard, and spell out to you the blinded points:

• (1). RP complains that "the current content of the paragraph... is essentially a list of names": No. That is a partial truth. It ignores the fact that this is a list of links to further information. If you would prefer to have all this WP information represented in this article, then let us do so. But do not deny the reliability of WP information in the process.
• (2). RP complains that this run of names does not offer "their positions on parapsychology, doesn't indicate their reasons for those positions, and doesn't give context to their positions (e.g. when was it, how did they come about, and have they changed?)." Again, if this information is desired, please propose to add this information (much of which already exists on the WP pages linked to) rather than censoring out the possibility. Let us also have the same demands on the citations of the likes of Alcock and "The Amazing Randi." We are waiting.
• (3) RP complains that "it solely mentions people who were apparently favourable to PS, and doesn't discuss those who were sceptical of it." This article is quite obesely full of information about "those who were sceptical of it". Where is not? The point of providing this very brief survey of favourable opinion (again, we can expand it), in contrast to the copiously referenced and quoted disfavourable assertions contra psi research in this article, was to introduce the necessity of objective surveys of scientific opinion. RP's comments suggest that this intention was not sucessfully realised. But why is censorial exclusion seen as the optimal way of addressing this concern, rather than addition and clarification of information? I trust it was surely not, in the end, that the commentator did not like the information.
• (4) Nemonoman adds "Deleting this paragraph does not harm the article." Naturally, if we are pushing an anti-psi-research agenda, no harm can come by deleting all references to well-known scientists who have considered psiological questions worthy of scientific investigation. By deleting this paragraph, yes, we harmlessly preserve this article's ubiquitous and unqualified representation of the opinions of controversial (peer-discredited) commentators and professional deceivers.

Rodgarton 10:38, 23 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rodgarton (talk • contribs)

Your contined use of the word "censoring" is somewhat offensive. This is a wiki, which means people will edit each others' writing and often remove it. It's not censorship, it's conflicting editorial judgement. Please assume good faith and stop seriously misjudging my motivations. I removed the paragraph under discussion after consulting here on the talk page and seeming to find a consensus for its removal with editors other than yourself, because I couldn't picture how it was going to transform into a block of text that belongs in the article and particularly in that specific section. For example, if it turns into a paragraph on why some famous scientists have thought parapsychology is valuable, then its too POV for a section labelled "Opinion". Perhaps there could be a section labelled "Advocacy" with such content, and that might balance the later "Criticism" section? However, the section would still need to give context (e.g. not implying that old opinions are still relevant) and discuss the rationales. The content when deleted was very much a list of names. References are not content, meaning that they are not part of the text of the article. Their purpose on Wikipedia is to provide reliable sources for the information presented in the content for the purpose of verification. There is nothing to stop you drafting another version of the paragraph and re-adding it. Although, of course, there's also nothing to stop other editors from changing or removing it again, that's how wikis work. If you haven't read any essays on the editorial process here on Wikipedia yet and how consensus is typically reached, can I recommend Bold, revert, discuss? It's not a policy, but it does reflect the culture of a lot of editors here. Ryan Paddy (talk) 03:57, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Removal of academic opinion section

Let's discuss the removal of the whole academic opinion section. There were several surveys cited, some of which were specifically of academic opinion. That seemed like relevant content to me. The reason given for their removal was "it's the opinion of academics, not scientists", I think. Still, the opinion of academics does seem useful, and at least one of the polls was of a science body. My only concerns with the section were that the last poll was in the 1980s, so it may mislead readers in terms of current trends, and that the polls were all of US people, which is somewhat geographically specific. But overall, it seemed like content that probably has a place here. Proponents of parapsychology are always coming to this page and asking "what about those polls?", and their absence (and most especially their deliberate removal) will make the NPOV of this article suffer from their perspective. Ryan Paddy (talk) 19:30, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

We needs must be very careful to present these in historical context and without original synthesis, but they are notable to the topic of how parapsychology interacts with other disciplines. A less controversial (and less notable) parallel might be how music theorists have viewed the use of synthesizers in rock music over the last few decades. - 2/0 (cont.) 21:09, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, historical context is important but needs to be sourced. As for synthesis, I imagine there's plenty of analysis of the surveys as a group in the discussion sections of the later papers to work from. I haven't look at the sources yet though. It's just a shame there isn't a modern update to these surveys. Ryan Paddy (talk) 10:44, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

The surveys cited were largely run by advocates, and, given that it's so easy to influence a survey with wording, that's a problem. I'm not at all convinced they count as reliable sources, and the framing was poor.

With surveys, response rate matters. For instance, the New Scientist survey had a tiny response rate. That may mean that the sample is self-selecting for people who find parapsychology interesting enough to fill out a survey on it - hence, biased. The response rates for the others aren't given, as I recall, but I do remember one that was sent to AAS leaders "and selected division heads". Selected by who, and by what criteria?

In short, I don't think that these can be counted as verifiable sources, they were framed in such a way as to push a POV, and should probably be left out, unless we can find better surveys. Gallup polls or the like. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 202 FCs served} 11:03, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Do you know of any reliable sources stating that those surveys were biased? Bad science in prominent publications almost always attracts formal criticism. Ryan Paddy (talk) 20:10, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Motivation to respond cuts both ways. I assume it's likely that some responded because of fierce opposition.

For more complete results and information about those being polled, see the "See Also" article which you also removed.

The surveys are entirely verifiable. Please re-read WP:V again: verifiability, not truth. You can look them up and the WP summary matches the content. So they pass that test easily. You may contest the JP as a RS for some conclusions, but the JP articles are pretty clear in this case, and the accuracy of the data in those articles has not been criticized to my knowledge, and there is not prima facie reason to believe that survey results as reported were bogus.

SH is one of those persons making a big point that PSI is not a science, and it's a point that can be argued reasonably by reasonable persons. That it is SOMETHING is also true, even if not a science, and I think it might reasonably be categorized as a "Academic Discipline". As such the opinions of the academic community about whether PSI represents a valid field of reasearch, etc., appear relevant, and these surveys are notable, or at least the AAAS survey. I was working for AAAS when that survey was done, and the heat of the discussion in the letters section of Science Magazine was extreme, and many newspapers ran articles on the survey. --Nemonoman (talk) 22:29, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

As with the "Contributions" section, I believe it's worth considering rebuilding this section line-by-line and source-by-source, possibly here in talk if putting it straight into the article will cause problems. It's not good enough to add or remove the entire section with broad-brush comments about "unreliable sources" or "censorship". Each source needs to be examined individually for relevance and reliability, and we need to consider in more detail whether to include content from each source. Ryan Paddy (talk) 23:45, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

You know I'm good with that process, RP...but I thought we already did that for this section.--Nemonoman (talk) 00:35, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

It was done more by a process of editing than discussion, I thought. Ryan Paddy (talk) 20:20, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

It is not necessary for me to provide evidence of decades-old criticism of something published in an obscure fringe journals. All but one were published in fringe journals, that one frankly discusses its many problems in its own discussions. These aren't reliable sources. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 202 FCs served} 03:07, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

The reliability of the sources is one of the things that needs to be decided, by consensus as usual. Ryan Paddy (talk) 20:20, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Do we have the sourcing to refocus on what other people have said about the surveys? Scholarly discussion by statisticians or impact noted by historians preferable to the evening news, of course. - 2/0 (cont.) 22:42, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

This is getting ridiculous. I don't know when the University of Pennsylvania Press became an unreliable source. Or New Scientist. When the Journal of Parapsychology reports on an experiment, one may find fault with the experimental methodology or the conclusions drawn. But the statistics are -- or a least were -- reported flawlessly.

Is anyone accusing these surveys of being frauds? No. Is the math that hard to check? X persons asked the question, Y answered yes, percent= Y/X, yes? For reporting of this simplicity, JP is clearly reliable, as are New Scientist and University of Pennsylvania press. The sources for the paragraph are verifiable. The details are found in the See Also article for those concerned about response rates, etc. -- we could move that info back into this paragraph if the situation warrants it. The paragraph is not misleading or POV in and of itself, and the article is certainly balanced with opinions that psi is a big fat delusion of hare-brained idiots. Especially in current form. So what's the BFD with some reasonable, notable facts about how deluded the academic and scientific community is as well? Well???--Nemonoman (talk) 02:33, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned there no big deal, it's just checking of sources as usual. Someone has questioned the reliability of the sources. So we discuss each source and we reach consensus on their reliability, then edit the article accordingly. In my opinion it would be better to discuss each source one at a time so that we're all talking about pros and cons of the same source. Which source do you think is the most obviously and undeniably reliable? Maybe you can start a new sub-section here to discuss it first. Ryan Paddy (talk) 04:10, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Citing the Journal of Parapsychology

It was stated, above, that editors of this article should cite only "mainstream scientific journals", and added that the "Journal of Parapsychology is not an appropriate source for this article". This statement was made without clarification, and I wonder if any present editors of this article can expand on the point. I can not, myself, concur with the opinion. For a start, this journal has been continually published from 1937, editorially committed to publishing more experimental than theoretical reports, which would be a strange fact if it dealt with wholly contestable phenomena. Its editors and members of its Boards of Review have consisted of leading psychologists, including the APA president Gardner Murphy and the leading textbook-author Ernest Hilgard (well-known to any student of psychology), as well as the leading statistician T. N. E. Greville. All its articles have been routinely abstracted by the mainstream PsycINFO database of the American Psychological Association, from the inception of the journal to this day. Academic institutions routinely subscribe to the electronic format of this journal (incl., e.g., in Australia, the University of New South Wales, the University of Tasmania, et al.). Publication in this journal rewards the authors, given its recognized peer-review policy, with the research credits to their field that their institution confers as swiftly as it does for publication in Cell or Nature or so on. Leading scientists of their fields have contributed articles to this journal, e.g., the statistician Feller, the head of the Smithsonian Institute Charles Greeley Abbot, the British psychologist Robert H. Thouless, the biologist Chauvin, the leading psychologist and statistician of meta-analysis Robert Rosenthal, and the late psychologist Dorothy Martin (who is feted by a scholastic prize in her name at the University of Colorado). The journal has routinely published articles, since its inception, that are stridently critical of the research it has itself reported - and more critically and specifically than can be found in so-called "skeptical" publications. I can supply copious references, to keep you busy for some weeks, if you would like them. Just what is the problem that WP editors have with citing articles from this journal? Rodgarton 08:57, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Annalisa Ventola was the editor who suggested avoiding it on the basis that it's not "mainstream". I don't think she was meaning that criticially, as she's involved in PS research herself. Personally I don't know exactly how reliable that journal is considered to be, but I'm more inclined to say it should be used carefully, making the source of the info clear and not implying that the results reported are generally accepted by the scientific community. We obviously wouldn't want to include statements that the existence of some psychic phenomena has been proven, with a PS journal as the source, unless there is widespread support of the statement from more general science journals, but I don't see why we can't cite PS arguments or findings from that journal. Speaking as a sceptic, I'm more comfortable with clearly attributed statements from an edited PS journal than statements from frothy sel-published sceptical websites. Most sceptical positions are repeated in mainstream publications, we don't need to rely on sources of dubious reliability. Likewise, if a more mainstream source than the Journal of Parapscyhology exists for a specific piece of info that it could be cited as well, or instead. Ryan Paddy (talk) 04:55, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

A. Ventola sanctioned against the JP in the same breath, without qualification, as she did that frothy "Skeptic's dictionary", which seems to question the reliability of the journal. We take that on faith for all journals, in the end, considering such facts as to peer review, author and editor credibility, institutional support, critical exchanges, as I have laid out above. But I take it that the general stipulation is now rescinded, and a responsible reference to this journal is not to be feared of a blanket denial at the outset. Rodgarton 05:34, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

This topic has been extensively debated (see the archives, and pack a lunch). But if the question is going to get opened again, I'll come down hard on the side of accepting the JP as reliable source, at least through the 1980s. I can understand not using the JP as a source of fact about whether psi is accepted as mainstream science, etc., but a lot of the key psi research was first reported there, and it just makes sense to reference JP as the primary source as required. I myself cited Rhine's JP article in the fraud section, and nobody seemed to mind. --Nemonoman (talk) 21:55, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Ryan Paddy's statement above: "We obviously wouldn't want to include statements that the existence of some psychic phenomena has been proven, with a PS journal as the source, unless there is widespread support of the statement from more general science journals, but I don't see why we can't cite PS arguments or findings from that journal." The article is supposed to reflect the preponderance of reliable secondary literature on its topic, without undue weight to fringe theories, so it matters that a journal is not a mainstream scientific journal. We can cite a non-mainstream journal, but not claim that it establishes a fact as proven. MartinPoulter (talk) 09:21, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

When I encouraged a rewrite that used only 'mainstream' sources, I did so with the purpose of bringing stability to the article. I felt it was possible to write a comprehensive and neutral article about the field while avoiding the use of what much of the WP editors here were calling 'fringe' journals. I think that Rodgarton's assessment of the JP is correct, but at the time, I was getting tired of the edit wars. --Annalisa Ventola _{(Talk | Contribs)} 05:34, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

The Journal of Parapsychology (JP) is one of the primary so-called "niche" journals that publish articles about parapsychology. So-called "mainstream" journals seldom will. The JP is peer reviewed and has very conservative policies demanding rigorous methodology and proper statistical designs. It does not publish "proofs" that strange phenomena are real. Instead most of its articles are reports of rather plain experimental evidence, and they are typically modest and disinclined to speculative interpretation. Not very exciting reading except for professional researchers. Interestingly, the JP has a long-standing policy to publish null and negative results because that is expected to give a more realistic, accurate assessment of the status of evidence in the field. It would not make sense to ban it as a useful reference source for the Parapsychology article.

On a different but related matter, I am not able to get to that actual material cited in reference #38 in the current version of the article. It goes to a much-used reference, with points labeled a-i, and ultimately points to the Odling-Smee entry in the reference list. That, in turn, is supposed to link to an article in Nature -- but you can't get there from here. At least I was not able to do so. I hope someone who knows how things work in this domain will fix it. Rogunnar (talk) 23:47, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

"psychic abilities" and "life after death"

In relation to the "dubious" tags added to the opening sentence: 1) has anyone got a suggestion for a better term that "psychic ability", assuming that other agree it puts too much emphasis on active abilities? 2) investigation of life after death is a historical aspect of "psychical research", the precusor to parapsychology. "Psychical research" redirects to this page. Overall, I believe that "psychic ability" and "life after death" were described as the subjects of research of PS from a reading of the PS association website - we'd need some differing sources to conclude otherwise. Ryan Paddy (talk) 03:33, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Looking at parapsych.org: "We are the international professional organization of scientists and scholars engaged in the study of 'psi'’ (or 'psychic') experiences, such as telepathy, clairvoyance, psychokinesis, psychic healing, and precognition ("parapsychology")." In other words "Parapsychology is the scientific study of 'psi'’ (or 'psychic') experiences, such as telepathy, clairvoyance, psychokinesis, psychic healing, and precognition". If one looks, however, at its Glossary, we suddenly see historical references to the term "paranormal", citing Rhine. But Rhine defined parapsychology not in terms of the paranormal, but, in the end, as the study of "extrasensorimotor communication" (i.e., ESP, PK). Other definitions will refer to interactions or information beyond "any recognized physical mechanism" etc., but others in the field will dispute that. It seems the PA definition is sufficiently circular to take in all accounts; but some would question what "psychic healing" is doing there (and see it as only an elaboration of the other constructs, esp. PK). Also, the reference to "experiences" could be disputed; it is not only a study of phenomenology, but of fundamental process. Note, however, the absence of reference to the single "abilities" framework. Also, there is no notion of "alleged" phenomena or other such adjectives in these definitions; this seems to favourably permit the definition to coolly stand for the study of these phenomena with both, or either, the statuses of veridicality and/or ostensibility. All up, taking stock of various approaches, including the PA's circular style as most "productive", the following can be suggested: "Parapsychology is the scientific study of the experiences and processes constituting such "psi phenomena" described as telepathy, clairvoyance, precognition, and psychokinesis". Then might follow another sentence such as "The field has also been defined as the study of extrasensorimotor communication" etc.[with refs], and allied phenomena of its investigation include those described as psychic healing and life-after-death." Rodgarton 04:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rodgarton (talk • contribs)

I think it would be better to focus on replacing "abilities" with another term if "abilities" is thought to be a problem, rather than rephrasing the whole definition. The definition line has been carefully constructed by painstaking editorial consensus, in order to not imply the existance of psychic phenomena or to rigidly define the much-debated scientific demarcation of parapsychology while also not belittling the scientific methods used or over-confining the scope of study, and to be concise and not include an unwieldy list of "psychic abilities". Ryan Paddy (talk) 05:07, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Can it not be a time for re-think? These things change in understanding. How do we define a planet?, the astronomers recently asked, in heated contest. May not Wikipedia follow and reflect these changes - the Ency. Britt. goes through its editions, why not WP? Furthermore, issue could be taken with "investigate the existence and causes of", as very little research is actually conducted specifically to prove the existence of the phenomena (even the first vol. of the J. Parapsychol. was largely about experiments relating ESP to other variables, such as intelligence and stimulus-size); and why the loaded term "causes" and not relationships and conditions? Looking over the archives, I don't see substantive discussion of such particulars, in any case. Also, the original appeal was to how the Parapsych'l Association defines parapsychology; the first line of their homepage I have quoted and turned around for a definition, and it is quite unlike what is given in this article. Rodgarton 05:42, 10 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rodgarton (talk • contribs)

As long as it's a definition and not you attempting to use what the Association studies to then determine that definition. The latter is called original research. Also it needs to be noted that the PA isn't the final definer of what Parapsychology is worldwide. Shot info (talk) 06:43, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm conscious that parapsychology is not just the modern field, but the historical field as well. Testing for the existence of psychic whatever has been a focus of parapsychology through much of its existence. Likewise the search for explanations for apparent life-after-death phenomena like apparitions has been a subject of study. Just because these things may be less emphasised now, doesn't mean they're not part of parapsychology. Ryan Paddy (talk) 20:06, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, I followed the PA definition given that it was stated that this is what the definition in this article was originally based on. It turns out that how they define what they study is quite different to what is given in this article. Accordingly, either the discrepancy has to be overcome and the definition is indeed given over to how the PA defines it, or some other criterion of definition must be raised. I have taken account of both possibilities in addressing this issue; and, indeed, have offered that definitions other than those of the PA could also be referred to. Also, definitions of a science do change over time - psychology used to be the science of mind, 20 years ago it was still the "science of behavior", now we find it is "the science of human experience"; others like to define it now as a branch of neuroscience; definitions can subtly or widely vary from one psychology faculty to another. These things change and are continually contested in the light of how the science has progressed, local research interests, etc.. Articles defining the science must surely reflect these changes and be cognizant of this contestability. Most notably, the "abilities" framework can no longer be treated as defining of the science of psi phenomena. Additionally, it will be found that many sciences define themselves best by describing the phenomena they study. What the science has historically studied must also be carefully referred to; even this phrase "life-after-death" is inaccurate for what it is attempting to describe - it connotes "reincarnation" (never a core concern, except for cases "of the reincarnation-type"), whereas it seems to want to describe post-mortem survival (of some aspect of human consciousness/personality) that is signaled by mediumship studies, etc. (but, again, never as the most popular hypothesis). Hence my suggestion to keep this to a secondary sentence. Noting the core phenomena of study in the lead definition appears to offer the most accommodating of solutions; and noting these as "phenomena described as" takes into account that even parapsychologists will decry some of the terms; e.g., Rhine considered "telepathy" to be untestable and unproven; the DAT theorists consider that most of the phenomena,incl. PK, can be defined as "precognition". And then again - what is this phrase "seeks to investigate" doing there? It either does or it does not. What fills the pages of the J. of Parapsychology, and the several other journals of this field, if not the result of "actual" study? The phrase puts the article up as apologist for even existing, and prepared to lose face validity. If it is a question of the social typing of the field, of the "mainstream vs. pseudo-science" issue, then I note that the section describing how to write articles about what some believe to be pseudo-science (and that could include the behavioral sciences in general) are to be treated "with care". While it might have been the case at one time, the opening line of this article does not seem to presently satisfy that requirement. Rodgarton 23:58, 10 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rodgarton (talk • contribs)

The Parapsychology Assosciation have no scientific standing among mainstream scientists, and can only be used as a citation for what parapsychologists believe. We should certainly mention their ideas, but we annot present them as objective, undisputed truth. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 193 FCs served} 18:07, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

What is the factual basis of this assertion of "no scientific standing" of the PA? Who else is an authority on defining the science? I have offered some possibilities; the discussion has moved well beyond singular focus on the PA. The issue of the accuracy of the opening paragraph remains unresolved, and merits no more passing complaints that fail to the address the issue. Rodgarton 00:57, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Section:"Decade of increased research (1970s)"

The info in the penultimate paragraph repeats some that is now also treated in one paragraph of the "Academic opinion" section. As the latter section collectively deals with academic opinion, would it not be appropriate to incorporate the novel bits that are in the former para into the latter?

Experiments that are not so prominent in the literature of the time are given "author & subject" status (esp., Moss), while others - e.g., Pavel Stepanek, psychophysiological studies esp. re alpha-band EEG activity - are missing. Suggest a string of subjects and a single review reference or two is better for this info than highlighting a few of the more bizarre studies disproportionately. Perhaps top priority is to remove the bizarre reference to "astral beaconing", whatever that is.

Some of this appears to be OR - stringing this info together to state that the 1970s was a climax. Other facts could be strung together to say that today the time has never been better, or that the 1940s were the salad days, etc. It was also a low - the 70s was when the Soal and Levy affairs climaxed. Perhaps what is most objectively notable about the '70s is the change in experimental methods and research interests, given new classical-mech'l and quantum-mech'l physical theories and the cognitive revolution in general psychology. This info might merit inclusion rather than going wind-fully off in a trumpet about halcyon days.

Rodgarton 01:17, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

There are two reliable sources cited in the article as stating that parapsychological research peaked in the 1970s, Melton (1996) and Odling-Smee (2007). Ryan Paddy (talk) 03:21, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

As I noted above, it is quite possible to do the same for other decades. Now can the substance of the issue I raised be addressed? Rodgarton 01:10, 25 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rodgarton (talk • contribs)

Please provide reliable references that state that other decades, and not the 1970s, were when interest in parapsychology peaked. Ryan Paddy (talk) 01:03, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Again you avoid the substance of the issue by focusing on a minor point. You avoid discussion of the silly misrepresentations of the psi research of the 1970s in this section by counter-posing "But how were other decades important?" That totally and willfully misses the issue, and I, myself, would feel ashamed to express such a dodge.

But, to the complainant's wits, I offer the information s/he seeks. That much-discredited commentator on parapsychology (who naturally commends the highest respect on WP pages) C.E.M. Hansel classified the 1920s as the "salad days" of parapsychology. Naturally, he was writing pre the 1970s, but one wonders why this decade is not, prior the '70s, given its trumpeted representation if the 1970s must.

Then let us say that the 1940s were the halycon days. We don't need to travel far - for an empirical study, look at Pope, D. H. (1942). The ESP controversy. Journal of Parapsychology, 6, 174-189. This article surveys critical articles concerning the study of ESP in non-parapsychology psychological journals. From 1935-1936, this constituted five articles, peaking to 42 in 1937-1938, then declining to 12 in 1939-1940, and none in 1940-1941. It was commonly remarked thereafter that few, if any, articles against parapsychology were published for another decade, and that parapsychology as a profession was now established. For example, Rhine (1947, The reach of the mind. London, UK: Faber.) offered that "So far as I am aware no one in the last decade in para-psychology has suffered loss of status or rank or salary by taking an active interest in psi research. There are even a few psychologists who admit to a betterment of position as a result of their contributions to the ESP research." Then, with his typical mix of caution and optimism, Rhine added that "These are recent developments, to be sure, but for that reason they are the more meaningful for the future" (p. 146). The historical event distinguishing the 1940s from the foregoing was the publication in 1940 of Extra-sensory perception after sixty years which surveyed ALL the past published studies, and ALL the past published objections to parapsychological research, and answered them, with invited contributions by authors of the objections themselves (at least those two who were still prepared to express something against the extant evidence). Rhine's consequential confidence during the 1940s increased so much that, it might be historically noted, he considered that it was no longer important to conduct fundamental research.

These points and others concerning what were the "salad days" can be made in various other ways. But, pray, please note the merit of the issue I have raised beyond the historical speculations. The description of 1970s research is just silly and unrepresentative, and WP editors should be ashamed to stand behind it. --Rodgarton 12:14, 26 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rodgarton (talk • contribs)

"and research trials conducted under contract to the United States government to investigate whether remote viewing would provide useful intelligence information"

Okay, here we see a highly dubious journal used for this, a statement made without bothering to mention the result of the investigation was "No, they aren't", and, generally an incredibly misleading, poorly sourced, and biased statement. It needs nuked. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 193 FCs served} 18:16, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Koestler Parapsychology Unit at Edinburgh University

I'll just post this. Was curious as to what that Edinburgh lab was actually doing. It's actually interesting: This article seems to be saying that the group is mainly interested in improviing critical thiunking, and seeing if there's natural causes. The article linked above is a frank discussion of how parapsychological phenomena can come from mental illness or hallucinations, and how to deal with someone convinced their mental illness is really ghosts. But I'm not getting this from the article, indeed, the actual publications of this lab are quite, quite different from what this article implies.

I think that going through the list of studies that this lab has done mght be a good step towards moving this back towards FA ( http://www.koestler-parapsychology.psy.ed.ac.uk/news.html ) - The work done at this lab seems very different than what's implied, and a bit more discussion from the materials found here might help. At the moment, this article seems written from the POV that all things studied are probably real. This lab gives the James Randi Educational Foundation as their second suggested link for information[1], and engages in frank discussion of alternative possibilities.[2]. Furthermore, we have an academic discussion of what students, over the past 20 years, have studied under the professors involved with the lab[3].

This, and a look into some of the other labs, might actually let us make an article (or sections thereof) that deserves FA status, presenting the whole of research, not just the extreme advocacy end, but people like Professor Watt who think it's interesting, but is not actually set on shouting "IT IS TRUE!", but - well, I'll quote a bit of the Guardian article linked above, by the head of the lab:

As yet, most mainstream scientists are not persuaded that there exists replicable evidence of psi phenomena. So, why research and teach a controversial subject such as parapsychology at higher education institutions?

Let's start with research. Polls show that around 50% of the population report some kind of paranormal belief, and of these, around 50% have had what they interpret as a paranormal experience. So these beliefs and experiences are quite common - clearly psychologists and parapsychologists should play a role in trying to understand them. In many cases, normal and well-known psychological mechanisms (such as a need for a sense of control over one's environment, or the misjudgment of the likelihood of a coincidence) may cause people to (mis)interpret an experience as paranormal. On the other hand, there is also the logical possibility that some psi phenomena are genuine. This is a hypothesis that can be put to test under controlled conditions, and that is part of what parapsychologists do.

Now, to teaching parapsychology. It is here that I, personally, see the greatest value for our higher education institutions. Parapsychology is an inherently attractive and interesting subject to students. I have found that, almost without students realising, they learn a huge amount about scientific methodology while studying parapsychology - in particular, how to identify and minimise possible sources of bias, artefact or contamination in a research study; the strengths and weaknesses of tools for examining controversial claims (such as meta-analysis); and strategies for resolving scientific controversy (such as having sceptics and proponents collaborate in designing and conducting studies). In short, it is a great subject for stimulating critical thinking.

Parapsychology as a useful teaching tool for budding psychologists? I can buy that. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 193 FCs served} 21:21, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Parapsychology FAR

I expressed my concern about Shoemakersholiday's major deletions and the FAR of this article on his talk page here. He removed those comments as trolling.

Scarcely.

This is the place to discuss big changes and big actions before engaging. To do so shows respect for other editors. --Nemonoman (talk) 16:10, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I pointed out major sourcing problems, and provided a detailed analysis of why they were problems, referencing the original sources which I looked up and checked. I've asked you to point out what you see wrong with my analysis a couple times. I quoted and summarise the sources, pointing out passage s that directly conflicted with claims made here. Instead, you have ignored the research and flung around personal attacks and random accusations. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 195 FCs served} 17:34, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Your excellent analysis was not put on this page. You gave no notice of your concerns here before or after making changes. You did not give the editor who introduced the problems that reasonably concerned you any opportunity to amend his edits. You made no indication here that the article had lapsed from FA quality. You did not give the editors who had worked on it previously the opportunity to work to restore its quality. You just FAR'd it, like the article had spun out of control, and you had no other option.

As to your additions, I'll address them when I'm ready, and I'm not yet ready. I have not made personal attacks on you to my knowledge although I have attacked your actions and if in doing that I have unwittingly attacked you personally, I will do my best to apologize and make amends. --Nemonoman (talk) 23:02, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

The complaints of major sourcing problems, etc. are, as I have shown on the archive of this discussion, wholly baseless. There is no detailed analysis but a series of assertions ornamented with some cherry-picked quotes. If this is what passes for excellent analysis on WP, there's hope for every ape in africa to have his say on the topic.
What this discussion suggests is that the information will have to be restored and then expanded. Where are the justifications to maintain its deletion? Rodgarton 00:38, 25 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rodgarton (talk • contribs)

I'm sorry, but I went through an entire section, sentence by sentence. If it's trelaly so very justified, it should've matched up a lot better with the sources. It didn't. The best you could do is argue that the title of the Isis source should be given more weight than the actual content. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 200 FCs served} 09:38, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

You here belittle the challenge you have in front of you. Blind Freddy would notice that I did a hell of a lot else than quote the title of the Isis report, chum: "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/Parapsychology/archive1" What, for instance, do you have to say of the Watt citation? How do you explain your excision of the 80% or so of the information you blankly deleted and upon which you hazard not a single comment? What do you have to say of the issue of blind-administration which you previously objected to but now shrink from mentioning? What do you now have to say of your defamatory accusations against reports in the Proceedings of the Parapsychology Association Conventions, and, naturally, the universities that have hosted these conferences? Buckle up and try a responsible reply. The readers of WP deserve it. --Rodgarton 09:39, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Rodgarton, how you write is of course your choice, but you may get taken more seriously if you stop embellishing your language so much. My desire to check sources of someone who writes "upon which you hazard not a single comment" is reduced. People tend to write casually here, because it's efficient and easy to read. Ryan Paddy (talk) 20:07, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I've written about 5 pages on this. I'm not going to be baited into more discussion by someone who, after those five pages, is still claiming I never replied. See the FAR. I'm done. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 200 FCs served} 20:55, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Fact or Fiction

Is parapsychology a fact or fiction? I REALLY want to know! And a proof as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.177.242.47 (talk) 03:40, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Pathological science

The lead now reads "Many scientists regard the discipline as pathological science" and this sentence has a new source, Voodoo Science. Can we please have a quote from Voodoo Science in which the opinion of most scientists is characterised as being that parapsychoogy is "pathological science"? Cheers. Ryan Paddy (talk) 00:58, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree with it being in the lead. The views of a small group of extreme critics isn't particularly notable enough to make it into a lead, which is meant to be a summary of the article overall. It's not like the lead is listing the views of the small group of extreme proponents as well. That said, here are some excerpts: http://www-vortex.mcs.st-and.ac.uk/~alvarov/aacte/park_2000a.html --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 02:41, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I own that book. It has some interesting discussions of cold fusion. But, checking the index, it does have a tiny parapsychology section. The main parts of the 5-page section on parapsychology appear to be:

• pp. 196-97 slight statistical margin (to premonitions of disturbing images being detected in advance); symptom of pseudoscience: evidence often consists of a narrow statistical margin, with no way of widening that margin. On 198, he applies this to criticism of PEAR.
• 197 Guessing cards fails to show any evidence of psychic ability under carefully controlled conditions.
• 197: in 1987: National Academy of Science reviewed all parapsychology studies to date concluded "no scientiific justification from research conducted over a period of 130 yeas for the existence of parapsychological phenomena" Author claims sittuation has not changed since.
• 199: Claims statistical studies may be popular in parapsychological studies because they "introduce all sorts of oppotunities for uncertainty and error. And eror hhas a way off seeming to support the biases of the experimenter."
• 199-200: "another symptom of pathological science.... there does not seem to be anything resembling progress. The evidence never gets any stronger... the results are no more convincing today than when [parapsychologists] began their experiments. No mechanism is ever uncovered. No testable theory ever emerges."

General notes: mainly criticising Radin and Jahn when specific examples given. Obviously, this is just a tiny section of a longer book.

As you can see, many scientists isn't supported by Voodoo Science directly, but by Voodoo Science quoting the 1987 NAS report. I'd suggest that instead, we simply meention the NAS report, give the date, and state its conclusion, clearly attributed to it. The NAS report is clearly notable and important, Park's analysis, while notable, should only be in the article body. He is, of course, a highly notable critic, but he is also only one person. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 204 FCs served} 05:04, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. "Pathological science" is not a pejorative term and it does not imply that parapsychology is inherently unscientific, as "pseudoscience" does—rather, it is a concise way of identifying a number of methodological issues which have been repeatedly pointed out by research scientists and other critics (and are discussed at length in parapsychology journals). Hence, it does not need to be referenced as extensively as "pseudoscience" would. In my view, the existing references, together with the detailed citations in 'Criticism and controversy' section, substantiate a mention of "pathological science" in the lead. --Issuesixty soulsgreat (talk) 06:22, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

In Voodoo Science, Park never says that Parapsychology as a pathological science is an opinion shared by "many scientists". It's not extreme original research to draw that conclusion, but it is still a minor amount of original research to say that (presumably) the NAS report justifies the "many scientists" line. It's probably better to quote the NAS report in the lead, and discuss Park's notable analysis in the criticism section. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 204 FCs served} 07:14, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

It's also incredibly old. What Park is referencing is a remark made by Langmuir during a speech in 1953 where he says that ESP study is pathological science. Langmuir was specifically talking about Rhine's research from 1934, whom he had earlier visited and disagreed with his methodology (disagreeing, for example, with Rhine's insistence that being a skeptic influenced the data). That's all really old stuff. How old? Well, it predates all the research from the 1970s, all the criticism to come after, and all the changes made by parapsychologists in response to criticism, including tighter controls and better designed experiments (like dumping cards for RNGs, dumping blindfolds for computer virtual reality environments, etc.). In many ways parapsychology does progress, and Park isn't being completely fair when he says it doesn't.

The 1987 NAS reference is a lot more notable, and a lot more contemporary. I don't personally know of any significant research that wasn't already underway at that time. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 11:58, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Using criticism by a major scientific organisation in the lead (this should probably replace at least some of what's there) is just good practice. Park can be briefly discussed with the other notable skeptics in the appropriate section, but the lead should contain the most important criticism, which the NAS source pretty undeniably is. It would also be reasonable to mention any other scientific organisations who have taken a stand; in particular, if the AAAS has ever made a statement about why the Parapsychological Assosciation belongs under their umbrella, that should, of course, go in as well, though I'd probably also mention the US government testing and rejection of parts of parapsychology if we include an AAAS source. That would (hopefully) get us the major positive and negative views on the subject. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 204 FCs served} 14:32, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

The source doesn't support the statement that many scientists see it as a pathological science. The notion that because it's not pejorative it doesn't need proper sourcing is incorrect. Will remove now, and will also remove the source as it doesn't seem to be adding anything and the statement is already well sourced. Ryan Paddy (talk) 19:34, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Can we have a quote from Hall where he says that findings always being at the margin of statistical significance is a hallmark of pathological science? Ryan Paddy (talk) 22:56, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Why? The only remaining use of the term "pathological science" is in the statement "Physicist Robert Park states that parapsychology's reported positive results are problematic because most such findings are invariably at the margin of statistical significance—a hallmark of pathological science—and that such results can be explained by a number of confounding effects." As all information in that cite on pages 196-200. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 204 FCs served} 23:06, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

There's an issue with the with the NAS report and fairness. While looking for the report today, I came across this paper by Jessica Utts (a parapsychologist) http://www.stat.ucdavis.edu/~utts/91rmp.html The quote:

Most of the criticisms have been leveled by psychologists. For example, a 1987 report of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences concluded that "The committee finds no scientific justification from research conducted over a period of 130 years for the existence of parapsychological phenomena" (Druckman and Swets, 1988, page 22). The chapter on parapsychology was written by a subcommittee chaired by a psychologist who had published a similar conclusion prior to his appointment to the committee (Hyman, 1985a, page 7). There were no parapsychologists involved with the writing of the report. Resulting accusations of bias (Palmer, Honorton and Utts, 1989) led U.S. Senator Claiborne Pell to request that the Congressional Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) conduct an investigation with a more balanced group. A one-day workshop was held on September 30, 1988, bringing together parapsychologists, critics and experts in some related fields (including the author of this paper). The report concluded that parapsychology needs "a fairer hearing across a broader spectrum of the scientific community, so that emotionality does not impede objective assessment of experimental results" (Office of Technology Assessment, 1989).

The notable criticism of bias was leveled not by parapsychologists, but by a Senator and the Congressional Office of Technology Assessment. Their conclusion is that the report was biased and needs a "fairer hearing across a broader spectrum of the scientific community". That's independent, notable criticism that should be mentioned in conjunction with the report itself in our article. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 23:30, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

While I'm sympathetic to your point, that a report so highly critical of the field was strongly attacked by the field's supporters is not surprising. I'd suggest that Utts isn't a very good source, but we can and should use the Office of Technology Assessment report that she quotes, if we can find the whole text. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 204 FCs served} 00:43, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Finding a government document of that sort is likely bordering on impossible. There's the Journal of Parapsychology report on it, but that too would a primary source. However, both Utts paper above or the JP report can be used as a source for reliable primary information. The reliable primary information that can be extracted is that parapsychologists believe the report was biased and that they were excluded from involvement -- no details necessary. The hearsay of what the Senator thought, and what the OTA thought could be excluded. It's easy enough to source that Hyman chaired the committee, as well, and that he had already preconcluded "no results" prior to his involvement there. The coverage here, just including factual sourced material, could read something like: "The NAS concluded that in over 130 years of research, parapsychologists have produced no scientific evidence of parapsychological phenomena.[source] Ray Hyman, a critic of parapsychology prior to the issue of the report, chaired the committee that made these conclusions.[source] Parapsychologists felt they were excluded from participating in the findings and claimed bias.[source]" That's the facts that occured, presented fairly. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 10:36, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think we can include the criticism of Hyman. After all, he was the person selected by the NAS, I'm sure they got the report they wanted from that choice. I'm a little hesitant to include the OTA report without having it in full, though - Utts' commentary on Hyman IS a bit of an attack piece, as well as one meant to persuade. Such pieces can use selective quotation, and I'd rather use a more neutral source, if possible. Utts could probably still be used elsewhere, but BLP issues alone mean we should keep her away from Hyman. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 204 FCs served} 14:22, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

SH - yes, I'm talking about that sentence. It implies that Park specifically draws a connection between parapsychology, marginal statistical significance and pathological science. If he does make that connection, then please provide a quote where he does. Otherwise it's misattribution to attribute to him a connection that he doesn't make - and it's original research. I don't have a problem with using him as a source who says that parapsychology is pathological science, but we should correctly characterise his reasoning in the book. Ryan Paddy (talk) 02:50, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

• p.10 "I use the term pseudocience to cover them all: pathological science, junk science, pseudoscience and fraudulent science."
• p. 41 "Among the symptoms that Langmuir associated with pathological science was that the evidence always seems to be at the very limit of detectability." in the middle of a section discussing the parapsychologist J.B. Rhine's tests on ESP.
• p. 197 (In discussing parapsychological claims by Dean Radin) "You will recall from chapter 1 that one of Irving Langmuir's tests for pseudoscience was that the evidence often consists of a narrow statistical margin, with no way of increasing that margin.
• p.198-199 "By now,you have come to expect this - a large number of trials with a tiny statistical deviation from pure chance, and apparently no way to increase the strength of the effect. [A little discussion of this, then] This brings up another symptom of pathological science to add to Langmuir's...."

While we could argue whether to use "pathological science" or Park's catch-all term "pseudoscience", the connectionis clearly drawn, while discussing parapsychology, numerous times. Seriously, Park's book was worth reading once, but I'm getting a little tired of reading it over and over and over. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 204 FCs served} 13:58, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, those quotes (especially p 41 and p 198-199) do support the usage in the article. I'm not trying to be difficult, just attempting to apply the same standard of rigour to the use of sceptical sources as to others. I'm going to try a slight change in the wording though, I think the phrase in hyphens reads as a bit editorial. Ryan Paddy (talk) 20:14, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. It's just that it's a bit annoying to have to read the same section over and over, since this section is hardly an in-depth analysis, and I don't think that there's much more to be drawn from it that isn't in the article already, except, perhaps, that Langmuir really should be discussed in the Rhine section. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 204 FCs served} 20:21, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I think some of NealParr's comments above are extremely misleading about this source. The age of the Langmuir reference is irrelevant, because Park only uses the Langmuir reference to define pathological science. Then Park, writing in 2000, after "all the research from the 1970s, all the criticism to come after, and all the changes made by parapsychologists in response to criticism" argues that the term still applies to parapsychology at the time he is writing. NealParr's comment that Park is being "unfair" is just NealParr's opinion. Shoemaker's Holiday is correct (as usual) that the source cannot be used for the opinions of multiple scientists, but it is a notable, general and recent criticism. MartinPoulter (talk) 10:35, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't know about misleading. I was just trying to say that the NAS source is better quality. I agree (thinking about it in that way) that Park's reference does bring it up to date and that it is now contemporary as such. I still think that the NAS is a better source for the lead than Park or Langmuir, as it represents a body of scientists over an indeterminate number of scientists that share Park and Langmuir's criticism. But of course, they aren't mutually exclusive. Both statements are presented and sourced in the article. And yes, MartinPoulter is correct that the comment that Park isn't being completely fair is just my own opinion (OR) and has no bearing on the article itself. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 11:44, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

"NAS is a better source for the lead than Park or Langmuir" - I totally agree: there's no debate about this. I probably should have said "can be read as extremely misleading"- I didn't mean to imply anything about intention. MartinPoulter (talk) 17:44, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I know. I just wanted to clear up anything I may have mistakenly implied. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 00:43, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Near Death Experience

I didn't see any discussion on this talk page about it. Why is there a POV tag on the NDE section asking for the mainstream view? There's nothing fringy about NDE research as (obviously) there's no experiments. It's simply qualitative run-of-the-mill psychology. In fact, in the short section there's even a paragraph about the biology of the near death experience in addition to the pure psychological research. This section doesn't deal with physics. You have to go pretty far-far out of the way to find fringe psychology research.

I'm going to remove the tag looking for mainstream coverage until something can be produced that demonstrates that it's not mainstream psychology. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 11:54, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Sentence about Alcock

From the "Questioning the validity..." section

"James E. Alcock, Professor of Psychology at York University – a controversial commentator on psi research[60][61][62][63] – has asserted that few of parapsychology's experimental results have prompted interdisciplinary research with more mainstream sciences such as physics or biology, and that parapsychology remains an isolated science to such an extent that its very legitimacy is questionable,[64] and as a whole is not justified in being labeled "scientific"[65]."

Firstly, this is a "sentence of death" and needs grammatically sorting out, but my main query is, what does "a controversial commentator on psi research" even mean. It seems to convey zero information. MartinPoulter (talk) 10:44, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

The references given to this statement suggest, at the most general, that Alcock can well be described as a "peer-discredited" commentator. Rather than highlighting or elaborating on that point, we should be happy with the term controversial in this minor part of the article not only out of politesse, but given that it is used as a general descriptor of the entire field in the very opening sentence of the article ("Parapsychology is a controversial discipline ..." etc.). Or should we now review that usage as coveying "zero information" about the field? I actually support the use of this term in the opening sentence of this article as it blankly conveys to the reader the biases that they will have to read through if they chose to further suffer this article. --Rodgarton 12:05, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Translation: "some people disagree with him". Why not put that in the article, then: what Alcock states and then what people counter-argue? I didn't raise the question about the use of "controversial" in describing parapsychology itself. When a person is described as controversial, it's harder to attach a real meaning to that than when a field is described as controversial. MartinPoulter (talk) 12:40, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Parapsychology is described as controversial, and then the article goes on to explain the controversy. Alcock is described as controversial, and then ... nothing. I agree. It needs to be reworded. I would have reworded it, but I'm unaware of what the controversy about Alcock is, and I'm not going to pour through the sources to find out. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 13:38, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Here is an example of the controversy raised within the cited article by I. Child, a long-term Yale University psychologist, on Alcock, in one of the leading journals of the American Psychological Association, American Psychologist: "Alcock accepted and repeated the fictions as though they were true"; "Alcock's paragraph and Romm's article are excellent examples of the shoefitting error that both decry in others who are in fact carefully avoiding it"; "Alcock, in short, did not seem to recognize that the design of the Maimonides experiments in so-called "dream telepathy" was based on controls exactly parallel to those used by innumerable psychologists in other research with similar logical structure ... . He encouraged readers to think that the Maimonides studies are beyond the pale of acceptable experimental design, whereas in fact they are fine examples of appropriate use of within-subject control rather than between-subjects control"; "the dream telepathy research at Maimonides was well protected against this kind of error [of shoe-fitting] by the painstaking controls that Alcock seemed not to have noticed"; "Readers who doubt that the falsification is as extreme as I have pictured it need only consult the sources I have referred to." There were a couple letters replying to Child's article, but neither of which sought to defend the misrepresentation by Alcock of psi research, as documented by Child. The other articles cited above provide elaboration of this unreliability. This goes beyond the "some people disagree with him" summary offered above. If Alcock's opinion, then, is to be at all represented in WP, and especially as it presently is as an authority, it seems necessary to qualify its status as questionable and also perhaps as unreliable. Perhaps the offerers of this point could do better than citing the dubious Alcock for the point they wish to make, and so to avoid the entire qualifications that are necessary. --Rodgarton 14:26, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

A single psychologist writing a paper critical of Alcock in 1985 hardly represents Alcock being seen as a controversial figure. If this is the case then every employed academic in the world is likely controversial. Simonm223 (talk) 15:03, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Alcock, here, is used as an example of a person who holds a -shared- opinion. WP:FRINGE#Particular attribution is at play. I. Child points out Alcock "repeated the fictions as though they were true". "Repeated" means that it's a shared opinion, only represented by Alcock as an example of someone who holds that opinion. It is not just Alcock's position. So, the sentence should read something like "Alcock says this.[source] I. Child disagrees, saying this.[source] Alcock's position is common among critics of parapsychology.[source] For example, [another guy] and [another guy] also says this.[source]" In that way, you avoid the particular attribution problem of making it appear that only Alcock says that, and that I. Child's position holds the same weight as Alcock's. I. Child may be right in his criticism of Alcock. It doesn't matter. Alcock's position is more widespread, even if wrong. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 15:35, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Sternberg et al. book

Can I draw editors' attention to this book: {{cite book |editor=Robert J. Sternberg, Henry L. Roediger, Diane F. Halpern |title=Critical Thinking in Psychology |year=2007|publisher=Cambridge University Press |isbn=0521608341 }}

This is a university-level textbook on critical thinking, edited by three former heads of the American Psychological Association and published recently by an academic publisher. It's hard to imagine a better source for a mainstream science view of the subject.

On page 292, Robert Sternberg writes "Some of the worst examples of confirmation bias are in research on parapsychology (...) Arguably, there is a whole field here with no powerful confirming data at all. But people want to believe, and so they find ways to believe." The title of the chapter is "Critical Thinking in Psychology: It really is critical". The page is previewable in Google Books.

Pages 216-231 are a chapter by Ray Hyman on assessing parapsychological claims. MartinPoulter (talk) 11:00, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

No longer FA

So, now that it's knocked down from FA status, I'm issuing a personal editor challenge to build it back up again. It'd be a real shame if everyone just abandoned the page. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 11:48, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I've actually ordered a couple books. I'm going to take a break until they arrive, but I will be back. One thing that'd probably help a lot is to go through and improve the sub-articles, e.g. Ganzfeld, as having them at GA or so would make the summaries much easier. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 206 FCs served} 11:51, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

C-class

This seems about a C-class, which is defined as "The article is substantial, but is still missing important content or contains a lot of irrelevant material. The article should have some references to reliable sources, but may still have significant issues or require substantial cleanup." I've gone ahead and assessed it as such.

So, let's do something productive. What's missing, what's bad, and what's covered in too much detail for an overview article? I'll start, and will go ahead and sign all of these, to make threaded discussion a bit easier. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 206 FCs served} 12:56, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

• The history section would probably best be handled by a dedicated article, with a summary of it here. The extreme focus on organisations prevents overall arcs of parapsychology from being seen, and unfairly removes credit from important contributors not involved with said organisations, such as Richet. It's also inefficient: a better-written history could easily cover innovations in parapsychological research: See below. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 206 FCs served} 12:56, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I think brief coverage of key, notable organizations is important, but I agree that we can do well to add some info about notable individuals. I'd like to see more on William James, for example. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 22:53, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

It's not actually brief, though, is it? In addition, some of this would be better covered elsewhere - Rhine's experiments would best be discussed in the context of other ESP experiments, for instance, not as history. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 208 FCs served} 15:52, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I think that you'll find that most of the sources do cover the history of parapsychology in benchmarks of notable people and their organizations, identifying the SPR as the beginning, and progressing through, for example, a "Rhine Era". Rhine, as the father of modern parapsychology, is definitely an integral part of the history. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 11:01, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

You do realise this article also has a section on organisations, which also covers the PA, for instance. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 208 FCs served} 12:43, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Different topics. One is current organizations and the other is history. The PA plays a notable role in the history of parapsychology. It is also a current organization still involved in parapsychology. You may also notice that James Randi and CSICOP is in the criticism section, but also in the organizations section (though CSICOP is now CSI). I'm all for organizing the document better, but I don't think notable things need to be jettisoned in the process. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 13:50, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

• The former section on impact on other fields very much overstated its case, contained provable falsehoods, and abused sources, but some of the sources contain information that really should be in this article. The most important, in my eyes, is probably the role of Richet on randomisation - if you review the table in the FAR, you'll see that the sources credit his work as groundbreaking, innovative, and important to the development of the technique (though (sigh) Rodgarton managed to make an unsupported claim anyway) and that's valid information that ought to appear. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 206 FCs served} 12:56, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't around for that section and don't feel like digging through the revisions. Maybe you can list off what you feel should be resurrected from it. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 22:53, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, Richet, as said above; also there was an appallingly-sourced section on parapsychology and statistics which we could ressurrect with better sources, and a section on how Parapsychology influenced psychology, which, although I'd be cautious about using Rodgarton's specific claims for, is a subject that is well worth discussing. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 208 FCs served} 03:22, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

• We spend way too much time on how a small number of specific tests are done, and yet spend the absolute minimum descrribing what's studied (in Parapsychology#Scope. That's pretty much the exact opposite of every other overview article. Why not organise it as, say, Telepathy - brief discussion of what it is, how parapsychologists test it, present and past, discussion of this research, including brief criticism, when appropriate. Repeat for precognition,, clairvoyance, etc. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 206 FCs served} 12:56, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Whatever's notable on content, but I like the idea for the structure. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 22:53, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

• Parapsychology isn't a well defined term. For instance, Parapsychology#Scope, [4], and the description of forthcoming research at the bottom of [5] claim investigations of hauntings as part of parapsychology. This is, at the least, surprising, and should be discussed a bit more. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 206 FCs served} 12:56, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Most of the coverage of what parapsychologists do is wrapped in the Experimental Research section. I'd say that hauntings, etc. is more along the lines of their qualitative research, which could stand some more coverage. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 22:53, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

What does everyone else think? Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 206 FCs served} 12:23, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure that it's missing a lot of content, nor is there much irrelevant content in it anymore, so I'm not sure C-class is warranted. But to me ratings below GA and FA are arbitrary, so I'm fine starting with that. Maybe we can get an outline going on the talk page in order to be productive. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 22:54, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

B-class has a lot of extra criteria, though. It's either a very weak B or a strong C. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 208 FCs served} 03:12, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

By the way, just to make things clear, the six B-class criteria. I've abridged some of the explanatory text, it's all available at that link.

• The article is suitably referenced, with inline citations where necessary. (No problem. Only uncited parts would be fairly trivial to fix)
• The article reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. It contains a large proportion of the material necessary for an A-Class article, although some sections may need expansion, and some less important topics may be missing. (This one's a bit more dubious. We don't cover hauntings, for instance, and I suspect we're going to need to add a lot more when we improve the structure.)
• The article has a defined structure (The structure is extremely poor. We need to make up an outline and rework it.)
• The article is reasonably well-written. The prose contains no major grammatical errors and flows sensibly [etc] (The history section, at the least, has some major flow issues.)
• The article contains supporting materials where appropriate. [e.g. illustrations, diagrams] (Pass)
• The article presents its content in an appropriately accessible way. It is written with as broad an audience in mind as possible. Although Wikipedia is more than just a general encyclopedia, the article should not assume unnecessary technical background and technical terms should be explained or avoided where possible. (Maybe)

We can quibble a bit over whether it's not quite bad enough to fail, or if it fails some of these criteria, but I think we can agree that there's a couple issues to deal with before it's a solid B. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 208 FCs served} 16:16, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I have more of a glass-half-full read on the article, but like I said, it's arbitrary. It's going to change anyway, so the current assessment doesn't seem that important to me. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 11:01, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

General Guidelines for Editing Parapsychology

I'd like to take a stab at bringing this article back to FA status. When I worked on this article back in 2007, active editors agreed to the following general guidelines for stabilizing and improving this article:

1. Utilize secondary sources or mainstream scientific journals as much as possible. This means that Journal of Parapsychology should be avoided as source for this article, as well as self-published skeptic's guides. We found that there was plenty of material to build an article with sources like Nature, Psychological Bulletin, and theBritish Journal of Psychology or textbooks and edited compilations on the history of the field.

2. Avoid the criticism and response approach. This means that parapsychology gets to state its case, then the skeptics critics state theirs. The end. No point-counterpoint arguments. This is to avoid having article read like an argument rather than describe the topic.

3. No direct quotations. It's always best to paraphrase. If one quote is introduced where so-and-so or such-and-such committee is praising the results of parapsychology, then the temptation is for another editor to find a quote to counteract it (and vice-versa). We agreed that adhering to this guideline would help keep the article stable.

Sadly, I see the that present article is no longer adhering to these guidelines. I would like to start editing out some of the material that violates the second and third guidelines above. But before I do that, what do the current editors think of the above guidelines? Any other general guidelines that we should consider while working to make parapsychology a featured article again? --Annalisa Ventola _{(Talk | Contribs)} 00:38, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Strongly approve of 1. If 3 is needed to keep the article stable, then so be it. 2 is clearly right in spirit but I question "parapsychology gets to state its case, then the skeptics state theirs". Some scientists working and publishing in parapsychology are skeptics: they're not disjoint, and there aren't just two points of view here. Shouldn't the scientific mainstream position on parapsychology should get top billing, then minority perspectives after, according to WP:WEIGHT? MartinPoulter (talk) 10:27, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely agree with you on point 2, Martin (see my correction). I think, however, that presenting the scientific mainstream opinion might be not be so cut and dry, especially when you see positive results from psi experiments winding up in mainstream journals, universities supporting parapsychologists, and even nobel laureates supporting psi. My thinking is that you can build both parts of the article based on mainstream sources. --Annalisa Ventola _{(Talk | Contribs)} 14:26, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I think these were good points then, and good points now. One issue that I see, however, is that increasingly there's been a general consensus at Wikipedia to avoid separate criticism sections, the idea being that these elements are better incorporated into the areas of the article they relate to. I think that can be done with much of the material in our criticism section, maybe leaving just a smaller general criticism in its place. I'm not sure how that would work with avoiding point-counterpoint, but I think it can be done well. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 22:46, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Point 2 is a major problem: Having seperate sections for criticism tends to ghettoize it, and frames it poorly. All Wikipedia guidelines say that the mainstream view should be integrated. Point 3 is questionable: sometimes, short quotes are appropriate. Point 1 I mostly agree with, but parapsychology is a broad field, and I think we should at least mention its fringes, which means a few sections that may have weaker sourcing. Using the best sources possible is important for FA, but that doesn't mean that whole parts of the field should be excluded from commentary simply because they are less respectable. Shoemaker's Holiday ^talk 22:18, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I would be open to integrating the criticism with the exposition, but like Neal says, I don't know how we'd avoid having the article turn into a criticism-response piece. Are any editors aware of a Wikipedia articles on a controversial topic that do this gracefully? --Annalisa Ventola _{(Talk | Contribs)} 02:55, 5 November 2009 (UTC)