Talk:Psychic/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

arbitrary break - Shoemaker, Martin's, Elonka's discussion below

Shoemaker, I have explained before that this deals with the presentation of pseudoscience within articles on mainstream scientific topics. Please don't mis-apply it. I prefer to deal with Psychic more as a social phenomenon, which presents all viewpoints in a cool manner, and does not try to decide the issues. We need to present the viewpoints, not take sides. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 02:38, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

To make that clearer: who is your majority? The majority believe in psychic paranormal phenomena. We do not present things merely from the perspective of science, nor of mainstream science. We present all POVs ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 02:55, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Martin, but that's ridiculous. You can't claim parapsychology is a minor, disputed field of science with one breath, then say that the rules for a fringe field of science don't apply to you, because it's not science. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 02:52, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

See above: we are an encyclopedia of world knowledge, not of WP:SPOV. Your majority can only mean science. But that isn't where this article is coming from. Also see what Ludwigs said above. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 02:56, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Martin, you have tio obey policy. WP:NPOV/FAQ is a policy. The section you are claiming does not apply to articles on pseudoscientific topics begins "How are we to write articles about pseudoscientific topics, about which majority scientific opinion is that the pseudoscientific opinion is not credible and doesn't even really deserve serious mention?" after which comes the text you claim does not apply to articles on pseudoscientific topics. You are simply wrong here. The policy explicitly applies to articles on topics such as this. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 02:59, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

The section has been questioned in the past, and the bits you quote edit warred in. It was written, I believe, by a group who are advocates of WP:SPOV. It is a statement of SPOV, as it claims that the majority view is always the mainstream scientific view. On the other hand- OK. You're completely right. We're dealing here with a topic which comes under the purview of the science of parapsychology. The consensus of the parapsychological association therefore represents the majority. Note that this is not what I want. I want to deal with this in a fair way, but the only thing that is going to happen if we deal with this as purely a scientific topic, or push the majority scientific view, is that the scientific discipline which is relevant -parapsychology- is the majority view. You will have to make the argument that parapsychology is not a science. In this, you will be up against James Randi, the ArbCom, the AAAS, and others. As I said, the FAQ is dreadfully flawed: it should make plain that it is dealing with pseudoscience in articles on mainstream topics. Otherwise, it either advocates SPOV by making mainstream science ipso facto the majority in all fringe articles, or else at least in this case it makes parapsychology the majority. Such is not a desirable outcome for Wikipedia, and so I advise that the FAQ be changed. I tried to change it, but certain people think that SPOV should be the way of Wikipedia. It is also, you may note, against the recent clarification which the Arbitrators gave us on the Paranormal ArbCom, where they noted that all the said views are to be presented in a cool and impartial way. Policy which is against policy, edit-warred into a seldom-noticed FAQ, does not work. We could take this case to mediation/ArbCom, if you wish, for it is a major issue. But in the end, we will not come out with making mainstream science ipso facto a majority. Is that what you want to push here? ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 04:00, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Martin, this is the earliest verion of WP:NPOV still accessible. It dates from 2001, and contains near-identical phrasing to the section I quoted from the modern WP:NPOV/FAQ. I also quoted WP:UNDUE. Wikipedia was created in 2001, so if you want to argue with something that's been policy since practically the time Wikipedia began, then feel free, but until you actually get consensus to change 7-year-old fairly stable policy, I really don't think you can ignore it. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 05:35, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Elonka, this article has undergone everything in the past, on the same issues, including an ArbCom. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 02:39, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Is there a list? I am particularly interested in mediation, RfC, and noticeboard threads. --Elonka 02:56, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

No, no list. I'd hope someone with a decent internet connection would assemble one if that is necessary. I would guess dozens of things could be dug up in the history of this talk page. Also, you can't isolate it. The same issues were dealt with on other related articles, like ESPPP. What should I do? I have a terrible connection speed (two kilobits per second). ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 03:01, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

qualifiers

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Psychic/Archive_4#Apparently_or_not_apparently

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Psychic/Archive3#.22Purported.22

RfC:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Psychic/Archive_4#RfC:_Which_defining_sentence_is_better.3F

Other:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Psychic/Archive2#Parapsychology_is_not_a_field_of_science.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Psychic/Archive2#Ridiculous

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Psychic/Archive2#Parapsychology_is_a_science

These may not be all, by a long way, and the focus on this page in particular. But as I said, you can't separate this from the same issues discussed for years on other articles, and taken to ArbCom. See the loci here [1]. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 03:13, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

No hurry, take your time. Remember, There is no deadline. Anything that's done to the article can easily be fixed later. So just take a deep breath, exhale slowly, and concentrate on the longterm version of the article, not the short-term dramahz. :) --Elonka 03:49, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but we may be dealing with a larger issue here see my response above. Shoemaker is right about what he says about the FAQ above. See what you think of it. See what you think of the history of that section. I recall that jossi tried to change it also, and that I tried to change it. So we may need to go over and have a discussion about the FAQ. Now, let me assure you that that FAQ is the only statement of SPOV in WP policy. It will be defended to the death. So I would ask for your guidance on this, as it will without doubt go through mediation to ArbCom. It is a simple issue, but it is like the Holy Grail: armies will die for it. If you remove that from the FAQ, a whole era of WP dies with it, or withers. What do you think? ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 04:08, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

It's 7 years old. This has been Wikipedia policy since the foundation of Wikipedia policy. It's also a basic, clear statement of how WP:UNDUE applies to a field where opposition to WP:UNDUE is particularly bad, and particularly prone to Wikilawyering. Frankly, this whole discussion only serves to demonstrate why such a clear statement is necessary, because you've so far managed to A. claim that WP:NPOV/FAQ#Pseudoscience does not apply to articles on pseudoscience, then you claimed that it doesn't apply to anything, and made broad-brush attacks against anyone supporting it. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 05:39, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Frankly, ShoeMaker, I find your attempts to attack another editor adds a strident, unnecessary quality to this discussion page. I don't suppose you could desist, and deal with the article and your own ongoing and rather extensive deletions.(olive (talk) 16:37, 6 October 2008 (UTC))

In Martinphi's list above, I am seeing one actual RfC, and that's it. Were there any others? How about mediation? Noticeboard threads? If not, I strongly recommend that these avenues be attempted. --Elonka 17:40, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I have added an archivebox at the top of this talkpage, where we can list prior discussions that have led to a clear consensus (so far I'm only aware of one, the "defining sentence" RfC). If there are others, which reflect either a broad consensus of the editors on this page, or have resulted from RfCs, mediation, or noticeboard threads, we can list those as well. Which doesn't mean that they're set in stone, since consensus can change. But hopefully it can help by marking certain issues as "decided" and then discussion can move on to other issues, as a way of moving forward. --Elonka 21:03, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Studies Prove that Psychic Abilities are not Common, but Do Not Prove that they Don't Exist

The article says psychic abilities have been proven not to exist. A more correct phrasing would be that they have not yet been proven to exist. If only one person in a million is psychic then studies might miss them. Failing to find such a person is not proof of nonexistance.

205.240.0.37 (talk) 18:39, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually it can never be proven that anything 'does not exist'. This is a fundamental principle in scientific endeavour. However, with every study that fails to provide any positive evidence the credibility of the hypothesis is diminished until (in the majority of cases) the hypothesis is revised or abandoned. 194.73.131.50 (talk) 16:16, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Removal of "outside the field of parapsychology"

Malcolm, you are destroying the meaning of the sentence, in which the word "field" becomes meaningless without the inclusion of its referent. It is also what the source says, so you are changing the meaning away from the sources provided. You are also on your third (or is it fourth) revert. Please stop edit warring. Bob (QaBob) 16:54, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

The wording of the sentence is unacceptable because it gives the false impression that Parapsychology is an accepted field of scientific research. I will repair the sentence. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:01, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Last I checked, it was a perfectly valid field of scientific inquiry, despite disagreement with its premises or results. Bob (QaBob) 17:03, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

That really intelligent editor ScienceApologist just undid everything I did to improve the article today. I really don't feel like going though this again from the beginning, now with POV pushing editors on both sides. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:10, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I feel the same way. Hopefully somebody else will revert him. Of course, we'd both have some reverts left if you had discussed rather than edit warred. Bob (QaBob) 17:14, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I just reverted back to the point we were at, and that we were discussing. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:17, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I didn't intend to revert EVERYTHING at all. There was a wiki-malfunction from what I understand. What I did do, however, was change the lead around. I think it is better, but let's discuss matters, okay? ScienceApologist (talk) 17:37, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

OK.... I disagree that the findings of parapsychology should not be mentioned in the lead. If you think they should not be combined into a single sentence as they were, that is one thing. But the lead should not represent only one side of the argument from researchers, even if you don't believe that the field of parapsychology is scientific. Bob (QaBob) 17:20, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

This surely applies here. Since parapsychologists are obviously a minority, we should not be treating them as "equal sides". ScienceApologist (talk) 17:29, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I find that to be an unnecessarily extreme position which doesn't really help to balance the article. Bob (QaBob) 17:31, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

It may be "extreme", but it is Wikipedia policy. If you want to change WP:WEIGHT, please discuss it there, not here. We are charged right now with presenting the most reliable understanding of this subject from the best of sources. The most verifiable, reliable sources deride parapsychology as something little better than a joke and mostly irrelevant to the phenomenological discussion of evidence for the existence of psychic abilities. Sorry. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:35, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

SA, I think you would classify any source supporting the true existence of these phenomena as unreliable, in which case your argument is circular. There is furthermore an immense difference between something being a joke, and something being not correct. I am not sure you can actually make a distinction between parapsychology as a field, and the attempt to demonstrate the reality of psychic forces.I think the article shuws that those people calling themselves parapsychologists have at least attempted to work primarily on determining this. We are charged with reporting what people think about the subject giving all views. Not what scientists only think. Not what you and I think about it (which I believe to be exactly the same). —Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs)

The hypothetical source to which you refer would absolutely be reliable for the opinion of the author, but it would not be reliable as to the scientific evidence unless it was published and reviewed by a level of scientific vetting appropriate for extraordinary claims. We have plenty of extremely reliable sources from excellent journals that actually state the exact opposite in regards to the existence of psychic powers. Until someone gets their psychic discovery accepted and agreed upon by independent sources, we are under the obligation to let the reader know that there isn't any scientific evidence for psychic powers. That's the way the game works outside of Wikipedia, and trying to get Wikipedia to change the rules flies in the face of our goal of being a non-innovative reference work. The people here who are trying to establish a "parity" by referring to parapsychology journals or the handful of out-of-the-way publications in second or third-tier mainstream journals are barking way up the wrong tree. ScienceApologist (talk) 03:47, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Are you referring to scientific sources, or "debunker" sources. The latter aren't acceptable. Bob (QaBob) 17:37, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

What about scientific debunkers? but seriously, if a 'debunker' reveals/exposes a fraud it isn't acceptable? Guyonthesubway (talk) 17:42, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Debunkers are certainly able to expose individual frauds, but they are not reliable when summarising the views of "all scientists", which is what they have been being used to support in this article, sometimes when what they have actually written doesn't couldn't in any way be read as saying what has been stated in the article. They are frequently bias and polemic. If their positions are based on actual reliable sources, then those sources should be cited rather than the debunker. Bob (QaBob) 17:45, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

WP:FRINGE#Parity of sources applies here. The pro-psychic side is using fringe journals and other such things. Mainstream sources need only be of equal weight to these, and the bar is not being set very high. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 17:57, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I would argue that that would be stooping to the level of your perceived opponents. If fringe sources are actually being used, they should be removed. Adding equally problematic sources on the "other side" doesn't really help anything. Bob (QaBob) 17:59, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

(e.c.)If we removed all "fringe sources", that would require removing most if not all of the "pro-psychic" material including any mention of parapsychology which, almost by definition, is "fringe" and therefore subject to the rules of WP:FRINGE. As it is, I am of the opinion that a lot of "fringe material" is in fact notable enough for inclusion in this article, perhaps even from a pop-culture perspective. If you admit this, I think you must admit that EQUALLY notable to this article are the "debunkers" who create sources/discourse at the same level of reliability (they aren't publishing in scientific journals showing us why Miss Cleo's hotline is not able to live up to the observable claims in her advertisements, but she isn't publishing in scientific journals either). Think MythBusters as an example of a perfectly reliable source that is at the same level as those who are claiming psychic phenomena exist. The psychic industry rakes in billions of dollars which makes their claims themselves notable enough for inclusion here. However, if Sylvia Browne is worth a mention here then so are her detractors since they are active at the same level of source reliability. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:07, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Parapsychology is discussed in the article. But the sentence in the intro is unnecessary, and particularly that sentence, which gives the impression that parapsychology has a level of respectability that it certainly does not. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:06, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Please reword/revise. My intention in writing that sentence was not to give parapsychology a level of respectability it does not enjoy. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:07, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I had not read the latest change. That seems okay. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:22, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

It works for me too. Bob (QaBob) 18:28, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Parapsychology is a field of scientific inquiry. That much is established, both outside Wikipedia and within. Ask James Randi. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 23:52, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

James Randi considers parapsychology to be a field of scientific inquiry, but he does not say that members of the Parapsychological Association are also members of the scientific community. Nor does he say that any active parapsychologists have presented scientifically convincing data. Randi thinks parapsychology is "scientific" simply because the question it purports to ask is a scientific question. However, without a doubt, he considers parapsychologists' claims that they have shown scientific evidence for psychic phenomena to be not only without basis but wholly unscientific. Not that the Amazing Randi is the be-all-and-end-all of what is and isn't scientific. But this ultimatum insistence that we treat parapsychology on par with other sciences has no support outside of self-promotional sources provided by parapsychologists themselves. Indeed, they whine, bitch, and moan about their ostracization fairly regularly. It is not Wikipedia's place to "fix" that issue for them. ScienceApologist (talk) 00:04, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

ScienceApologist, I really don't know what to do with this distorted conception of science. look:

1. the 'scientific community' is at best an abstraction, and at worst a misconception. trying to figure out whether someone is part of the 'scientific community' is like trying to figure out whether someone is a liberal; useful only for arguments and insults, otherwise devoid of meaning.
2. saying that 'parapsychology is "scientific" simply because the question it purports to ask is a scientific question' is inherently reasonable. science is defined by (a) asking structured questions, and (b) analyzing those questions in structured ways. the failure to show effective results does not make the act less scientific.
3. no one (except you) is insisting that we treat parapsychology on par with other sciences, and you're only doing it as a political move. if you stop trying to make it so, the entire problem you're trying to contest will disappear.

--Ludwigs2 00:24, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Fortunately, any one person's "view" of what the scientific community "is" is irrelevant. The sources indicate a disdain on the part of the community for claims of psychic phenomenon. That's it. However, the parity that is evinced in the wording that both you and Marinphi have inserted essentially places parapsychology as it currently exists as an endeavor which deserves careful consideration vis-a-vis this article. We see many people above weighing in that the details of parapsychological claims are almost so irrelevant to this situation as to make including even mention of parapsychology in the lead to be problematic. Instead of adhering to this consensus about the sources, Martinphi has inserted audacious attributions to the Parapsychological Association: something that seems to me to be if not in explicit violation of WP:FRINGE then, at the very least, completely disruptive to our editing process. And here you are telling me that I'm insisting that we treat parapsychology on par with other sciences? Lord no, I'm trying to get parapsychology properly described per Wikipedia policies as the parochial, quaint, and eye-rollingly outrageous opinions of pseudo-professionals who apparently think that confirmation bias doesn't apply to them when they're looking for evidence for the existence of ESP. Now, I'm not arguing that this is the wording we should use, but right now your camp has positioned something diametrically opposed to this description which means that you are promoting content which is diametrically opposed to the best sources we've got. ScienceApologist (talk) 00:53, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

look, SA (or as the say in my neighborhood, esse) - it's not one person's opinion what the 'scientific community' is, it's a general observation that a 'scientific community' is a gross abstraction without any real referent in the real world. that aside, though, all I'm trying to distinguish in this article is that there are some people who try to investigate the topic using proper scientific paradigms. as far as I'm concerned, they should be given due credit for 'trying' to be scientific about it, and due acknowledgement should be made that when they try to be scientific about it, they consistently fail to generate positive results. that is far more damning to them than trying to dismiss them as kooks. seriously: let them have the rope that hangs them. the more we try to shade the article to make them look bad, the more likely people will be to believe them (because everyone sympathizes with underdogs). a nice, neutral statement to the effect that 'they tried; they were methodical about it; they failed' is more powerful than anything negative we ourselves can say about them. --Ludwigs2 04:38, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

They may be chasing the wind. But Hyman was unable to find any flaws with their methods in the autoganzfeld experiments, and the experiments still came out positive. It is the fact that the studies came out positive and no flaws were found -the fact that there is a debate- which makes people here so adamant that the field is to be deprecated. You didn't know that? Well, that's because you haven't been told, because we don't discuss it in WP. I'm not saying that the results are "real", only that if one were to display the rope, parapsychologists would not be hanging from it. I'm not saying that parapsychologists are not just wishing hard and trying to do science and convincing themselves. I do say that the experiments, even many done with critics, come out positive.

Why are we citing a NAS report which is from 1988? Could it possibly be relevant that two principle members of of the panel, Hyman and Alcock, were from CSICOP, and Hyman is an original fellow of the organization? That the NRC violated its own policy by not having any psychic researchers on the panel? That the chairman of the committee phoned one of the authors of a paper (done for the report) which was positive, asking him to withdraw his conclusions (later saying this was to avoid "mixed signals"). And that the committee could not offer plausible alternatives to the research they looked at, according to the report?

Tell me, Ludwigs, do you really think skeptics are so stupid that they'd mind letting parapsychology in if it really looked bad? ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 05:25, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Martin: as a rule, if I ever find myself thinking "are these people really that stupid, or are just pretending to be stupid as a really smart tactic" I squelch it as an entirely pointless (and slightly paranoid) worry. I don't think skeptics are stupid or machiavellian, and more than I thing advocates are stupid or machiavellian - at least not any more than most people. I think skeptics (like most everyone in the world) have a particular belief structure that colors their thinking. as far as I'm concerned, the thing that's being neglected here is how utterly conservative (in the original sense of the word) science is. science is pragmatic and functional: a small set of successes is not going to lead scientists to say that something works (not unless there's a way to use it so that they can develop a larger set of successes), and a large set of failures is not going to lead scientists to say that something never works (because there's always the possibility that some new approach might come down the pipe). Yes, advocates will grasp at a small set of successes as a victory; Yes, skeptics will grasp at a large set of failures as a defeat. all that really shows is each side exaggerating empirical evidence to substantiate their ideological preconceptions.

This reminds of a story about Ramakrishna I heard once. he was visited by a couple of monks who claimed to have developed special powers; one of them had developed the ability to shoot a beam of light from his back while deep in meditation (so the story goes - I forget what the other one said he could do). Ramakrishna's response was basically: "well, that's cool, but what possible use is it? stop trying to show off and get back to basics". paranormal researchers are intrigued by what they see as possibilities; skeptics are annoyed by what they see as fantasies. scientists (and wiseguys like Ramakrishna) couldn't care less either way, because they're only interested in what they can practically and effectively do.--Ludwigs2 06:32, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Right. Well, as far as the "what can you do" part, tell Rama that the first guy who meditated didn't know you could do anything with it, and tell him that the reason you meditate is not so you can do anything. And there goes all basic research out the window.... But anyway.... there were some other points, no (-: with implications for the article? Like, the NAS is out-dated, questionable, and we really need to look at the tone of the article. We also need to stop treating it as a science debate... or lecture. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 08:04, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Watching this argument with a sense of puzzlement, I feel compelled to leap in and disagree with Ludwigs2.

First, the application of the word "skeptic" .... irrelevant of the term being defined as such, I find it personally insulting as a scientist, just as I would any well defined epithet. I assume good faith, and very much believe that this isn't an intent on the part of those who so casually throw the term around as a label.

Science is conservative in the sense that it demands rigoroous and repeated testing before acceptance, no matter who the claimant is. Even then, others will attack the new ideas because this is how science improves upon itself. It comes across as elitist in one sense: not just any idea will be accepted -- only those that have faced the music of rigorous testing, and then repeated testing from others.

This is where I find the dividing line between colleagues in the social studies areas and the natural sciences. Social studiers will do research, and in some cases will even conduct what could be termed experiments (sometimes even somewhat controlled). However, a single publication can gain the acceptance of the idea within the community. One single success would never be accepted in science, and those who would rally around a success as theory are derided for breaking the cardinal rule: one success does not a theory make. As an educational researcher once said: the social sciences are far superior to the natural sciences, because only about 10-15% of their hypotheses are ever supported. In the social sciences, it is closer to 80-90% (I don't think he was being sarcastic, but I wish he had been).

All scientists (I do mean that in its literal term) must be skeptical of new results. New results must be challenged. That is a core part of the scientific process. Even a scientist who looks at new results and thinks "Wow! I hope this turns out to be true!" must have the restraint to wait for more complete independent testing.

To the point of this minor rant - There is a difference between the skeptical (which anyone who calls himself a scientist must be) and what some seem to be labeling as a skeptic. To the point of here, I think there are some who look at the work conducted by the parasychological community, and see it not being conducted with the rigor of science (this certainly may have changed since the era at Washington University), but there also seems to be a concern about the lack of skepticism which must permeate good science, and is generally lacking in the social studies areas ..... a single success might be celebrated, but no one who is a real scientist would accept this as but the tiniest step toward constructing a model or theory worthy of being accepted.

If I've misread the feelings here, I apologize.

LonelyBeacon: (I think that's you, anyway - your sig got lost). for the most part, I agree with you (except for the bit about the social vs. natural sciences, which we can get into elsewhere. ). The problem I see on this page (and other similar pages) is that many editors make no distinction between proper scientific skepticism, which as you say insists on reasonable and replicable evidence before it's willing to give a theory the time of day, and lay skepticism, which is simply a form of prejudice against ideas that 'sound funny', usually with some scientific trappings. Me personally, I have no desire to see this page imply, hint, or suggest that psychic abilities verifiably exist, because there's really not sufficient evidence to make that claim. but I get a bit annoyed at editors who go out of their way to make psychic research (and psychic researchers) look stupid, vapid, inane, or outright wrong, because that's just character assassination. It has no relevance to scientific merits (or lack thereof) of the article topic. I'm a scientist myself, and quite skeptical of most research, but I see no reason to reduce the argument to criticisms of the people involved, or to try to denigrate an entire field of research by calling it names when that field is perfectly capable of failing on its own. I meant no offense to scientists when I used the word skeptic - I'm sorry if you took it that way - but I do want to distinguish between healthy and unhealthy forms of skepticism.

Martin: I agree with you - I don't know why we're using a 20 year old article (is that the best we can find?) and the tone of the article borders on snotty at places. I'm not sure how far we can get, though, unless other editors are willing to enter into proper discussion about it. --Ludwigs2 18:05, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Inclusion of PA in lead section

Since no one is addressing my concerns about PA being in the lead, it should be moved out of the lead. --Ronz (talk) 18:26, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Just to help me understand, is the disagreement about whether or not the PA (Parapsychologist Association) should be mentioned at all in the article? Or simply whether or not it should be mentioned in the lead? --Elonka 19:16, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Not to read minds (pun intended), but I believe the point is that the leads makes it sounds like the PA is scientifically equivalent to the vast number of scientists who have studied and dismissed psychic as a real ability. The PA is not a real science association, say on the level of the NSF or NAS. I don't think we should exclude it from being mentioned in the article. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 19:28, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Per WP:LEAD, the lead section is intended to be a summary of what is already in the article, not as a separate mini-article. Therefore, if the PA is being listed only in the lead right now (as it appears to be), then I would agree that it should be moved into the body of the article instead. Generally in these kinds of conflicts, I often see editors battling over how the lead should be worded, and they completely ignore the rest of the article. Whereas things often go much more smoothly if folks concentrate on the body of the article first, and then once that's squared away, the lead summary is often much easier to write. --Elonka 19:42, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Well said, Elonka. If the PA is to be included they should be described in a section based on a reliable secondary source, to avoid original research in evaluating the significance of this organisation. Once that's done it will be easier to show them in context and summarise that in the lead. . . dave souza, talk 20:39, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. I can see how NSA could be in the lead per FRINGE, but I see no reason to have PA there when it's not summarizing something already in the article. --Ronz (talk) 23:53, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Elonka, you are right that the PA should be in the article if it's in the lead. I only put it in the lead because someone put a "who" tag (or something) on the sentence- it was originally just a source about the consensus of parapsychologists. There is a good place for mention down the page, and I'll try to deal with this later tonight. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 00:45, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

It's reasonable to show the claim in the lead using that source, but the linked article shows no secondary or third party source establishing notability and the organisation should not be given undue weight in the lead. A non-notable organisation's self-published web article talking about "we" is not evidence of consensus. The addition to the body of the article therefore needs a further citation, or should be rephrased to reflect accurately the statements in the source. I've commented out the name and removed the claim of consensus in the lead, and shown more detail of the January 2008 study. . . dave souza, talk 09:37, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

What is scientific

just a comment, because this particular battle is not something I'm worried about either way. however, the main tenor of the argument here seems to involve wikipedia editors deciding for the rest of the world what is and is scientific. which leads me to wonder who died and made us God? If I was going to handpick people whose task it was to decide what is and what is not scientific, I would not (no offense) start with the people engaged in this discussion (myself excluded, of course - benefits of getting to pick... ). this whole debate has drastic overtones of wp:SYN, and if you don't see that you might very well be one of the SYNners. --Ludwigs2 21:11, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Eh, the concern being put forward is that proper verification is provided, and it's verification from reliable sources that shows that "psychic" isn't supported by any scientific evidence. Synner, repent! . dave souza, talk 21:45, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

eh, indeed. there's a difference between looking for information in verifiable sources, and promoting a 'some verifiable sources are more equal than others' type attitude. but that being said, your point is well taken. --Ludwigs2 22:00, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Ludwigs, your backhanded uncivil comments really lack a certain je ne sais quoi. No one hand picks what is or is not science. We pick the sources that make that decision. The vast, and when I mean vast, I really mean 100%, but hell, I'll let you have the CIA backed and censored study that was refuted by so many scientists that it's laughable, majority of articles about this field in real science journals, and when I mean science journals I don't mean the Journal of Parapsychology or UFO today, debunk any theory about psychic skills. So, I don't choose. I just read. Big difference. So, if you're not going to choose me to make these decisions, trust me, I'll sleep well. But when your heart is 99% occluded by coronary stenosis, when you come to me, you'll want me to use the coronary angiography to determine the extent of your cardiovascular disease, not my psychic ability to see into your arteries. That's because I use science. Oh, just in case you say "I'll never come to you for my coronary artery disease", you just never know how karma works. Oh wait a minute karma isn't real either. LOL. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:45, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Ludwigs, we really should not have to remind you that assesment of sources is governed by WP:V and by the guidance in WP:RS. With reference to the Parapsychological Association, WP:RS#Extremist and fringe sources applies. . dave souza, talk 23:20, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

The PA is representative of the scientific discipline of parapsychology, and Wikipedia treats it as such. However, there is no reason not to use attribution, nor is there any reason to exclude skeptical or mainstream scientific sources merely because parapsychology is the scientific field which covers this area. This article is not primarily about science, indeed it should be mostly about culture, history etc. But where science is concerned, we will use the sources in an NPOV way, and we will not exclude parapsychology or treat it with disrespect. Parapsychology engages in scientific research, but its methods are questioned. This is valid, and should be included in the article. But excluding parapsychology or taking it to be unscientific merely because of the fact that it studies fringe phenomena or acting as if no parapsychological source is reliable for use in the article- that's out. We already settled this dispute, and it's not being re-opened. Argue all you like, but the dispute resolution process already ran its course, and the pre-existing principles of NPOV were applied. If you don't grant that parapsychology does science, then you are denying the obvious, the skeptics, the AAAS, and the ArbCom. If you do grant that it does science, then there is no reason for trying to exclude it. There is one basic thing which we need to keep in mind: denigration and approbation are out: we merely present information. If parapsychology, or any other source, is prominent, we use it, and we do not take sides. Some people here have been taking sides, and denigrating. They need to back off and consider what Wikipedia is. Wikipedia is not a forum for righting wrongs. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 23:45, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

(undent) Orange, Orange <sigh...> you just don't get it. but that's ok, and I'm not all that interested in debating it with you in this particular place. arguing against someone's religious beliefs takes a certain kind of environment, and a level of patience and dedication that I'm not willing to invest here. but mark my words, that's what it is. Science is a doctrine to you, not a practice, and that is what lies at the root of all our difficulties. but we can pick that point up somewhere else. --Ludwigs2 23:50, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Martinphi and Ludwigs, please provide verification in accordance with WP:NOR, WP:V and WP:RS. . . dave souza, talk 23:56, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Dave, what are you asking me to provide verification of? that a whole lot of SYN is happening here? it seems to me that the two sides are as follows:

• Martin (and others) offer that the Parapsychological Association is a scientific body engaged in some sort of scientific paranormal research. this is verifiable prima facia: it's how they describe themselves. the fact that it's a fruitless, idiotic endeavor isn't relevant.
• you and OM (and others) offer that the Parapsychological Association is not a scientific body, mainly because they are not published in the journals of other mainstream scientific bodies. That is a form of synthesis through negative reasoning, and can't stand on its own.

it seems to me that you and OM should be the ones providing sources which explicitly say (with appropriate reasoning) that PA is not a proper scientific body, or that parapsychology is not a proper scientific field (again, with appropriate reasons). if you can not provide those sources, then by what rights are you challenging the PA's claim that they are scientific? --Ludwigs2 00:35, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Ludwigs, let me once again ignore your personal attacks. How dare you insult my religion, in that I am Jewish, not Science. That was really rude and uncalled for, and quite frankly fairly bigoted of you. Since I'm going to ignore it, I'll move on to what is science. It is the use of the scientific method to uncover information about the world. Now I'll grant you that Parapsychology pretends to be science, but it isn't, since it's not falsifiable. Given that there isn't one scintilla of evidence published saying that I can psychically hear you (save for the CIA funded study), yet parapsychology continues to be "scientific", there is a problem here. Parapsychology is a pseudoscience pure and simple. And no, that's not my religion. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:49, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

as I said, we can engage the religious discussion elsewhere and elsewhen. but don't get me wrong: I have a high respect for faith. but on wikipedia faith needs to be compartmentalized, otherwise it begins to interfere with editing.

but back on topic, let me go through your edit point by point:

• (science) is the use of the scientific method to uncover information about the world. I agree, with the caveat that the Scientific Method is a fairly broad abstraction. there's no actual scientific method, but rather an informal understanding of the kinds of things that make for sound, effective research.

• Wrong. Please see scientific method. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 16:46, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

• minor point, though in point of fact I have a ton of reliable sources to this effect. guess I'll need to update the SciMeth page... --Ludwigs2 17:38, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

• Now I'll grant you that Parapsychology pretends to be science, but it isn't, since it's not falsifiable. can you provide a source which shows that parapsychology is not falsifiable? it seems to me that (in fact) parapsychological claims have been falsified in numerous experiments. now certainly there are any number of true believers who refuse to look at the failed scientific experiments or refuse to draw the proper inferences (people, I swear...), but parapsychology is clearly not like 'the existence of God', which is a truly unfalsifiable theory.

• Good, thanks for the agreement. Please change the lead to state clearly, "Parapsychology is not science." Yes, science has falsified parapsychology, but parapsychology itself has not. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 16:46, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

• lol! OM - if it's falsifiable it's perfectly valid as science. I'll edit that in, if you like. --Ludwigs2 17:38, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

• Given that there isn't one scintilla of evidence published saying that I can psychically hear you (save for the CIA funded study), yet parapsychology continues to be "scientific", there is a problem here. (1) the absence of evidence can not be used to imply that there's nothing there. I apologize for the limitations of logic in this regard, but the best we can say is that we have no reason to believe the theory is true; going beyond that to imply that the theory is false requires a leap of faith. (2) the absence of evidence does not imply poor scientific methodology or an unscientific attitude. it merely means that experiments have failed to produce measurable results. It took 50 years or so after Einstein proposed general relativity for someone to measure light being bent by a gravity lens; does that mean that all the physicists in those 50 years were bad scientists with poor methodology?

• Wrong again. You're using backwards logic. The absence of evidence is evidence itself. But, if we create a theory of parapsychology, please delineate the method by which it works, test it, retest it, publish it. Well, whenever parapsychology is tested by scientists, it fails. Sorry. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 16:46, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

• yes. it's tested, it fails, and that is precisely the way that scientific investigation advances. I don't see the problem. --Ludwigs2 17:38, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

• Parapsychology is a pseudoscience pure and simple. this conclusion (while I don't necessarily disagree with it) is unsourced, and it doesn't seem to follow as a natural conclusion from your previous statements. so where did it come from?

• I don't actually care if its pseudoscience or not, I get to call it that because it meets all of the standards of such. All I care is that the article states that it has not met one single itty bitty tiny little standard of science. That's all.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 16:46, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

• ok, then we'll remove the pseudoscience label, and specify that there has been no successful verification of any of the the principles or theories that have been advanced for psychic abilities. will that work for you? or if not, then lets discuss what will satisfy us both. --Ludwigs2 17:38, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

See what I mean about the SYN? --Ludwigs2 01:21, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

This is a talk page. We discuss ideas to improve the article.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions}

True, and by asking you to provide sources for the edits you're trying to enter into the article, I think I am improving the article significantly. --Ludwigs2 16:27, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

There is also a lot of plain incorrect information here "vast number of scientists who have studied and dismissed psychic as a real ability": such has not happened. "The PA is not a real science association, say on the level of the NSF or NAS" quite so, it's an association representing a sub-discipline. The AAAS includes the PA: that cements its position. I'm sure that secondary sources will say it's the association that represents parapsychologists. Basically, you can include the fact that people question the validity of parapsychological results, or you can include a statement that parapsychology is pseudoscience if you can find one (attributed). This will be balanced by statements such as that by Randi and Alcock that it is a science. But you can't say that parapsychology or its sources are to be excluded. You can think they are unscientific all you like, but you'll have to follow the sources on the matter. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 23:57, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

So, provide these sources on this talk page so that they can be evaluated to see if they're reliable third party sources giving majority views on what appears, by your own account, to be a minority fringe view. . . dave souza, talk 00:08, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't want to seem harsh or hurt anyone's feelings. But Dave, we've been over and over these very issues for years. I don't feel obligated to go over them again and again, every time someone comes in who feels the way you and OrangeMarlin do. I can refer you to many talk pages and discussions, but probably the best place to get up to speed on these issues, and how Wikipedia has resolved them, is to read the pages linked in the lead section of this, and their talk pages. That is the top of the iceberg of the process we went through. I mean no disrespect, but after years of work, and having gotten an ArbCom ruling which is very relevant to the exact issues presented here, and having just recently had a clarification of that ArbCom, I don't feel we need to retype all these arguments. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 00:44, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Except I read the same ruling, and yup, it says without reliable sources, this isn't a science. Since you and Ludwigs are stating that it is a science, please show me the proof. Please. I'm waiting. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:50, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

What, if I could show you an RS that says that parapsychologists are scientists, that is to say in the field or camp of scientists, you will.... do what? ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 01:18, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Presumably counter it with the vast body of reliable sources that say parapsychologists are pseudoscientists. John Nevard (talk) 08:53, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, presumably. Which is why I want to know, seeing as I've never seen those RS- and don't believe they exist, certainly not in great quantities or among experts. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 22:00, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Explanations of alleged psychic powers

So, we have the uncited line "Parapsychology involves research that does not fit within standard theoretical models." in the article. Are there any marginally credible scientific theoretical models put forward by parapsychologists? John Nevard (talk) 09:22, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

No, but there is also no reason to say that it does not fit within the models. It's unknown. The models are incomplete anyway. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 21:58, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Problems with recent edits

1. Lack of sources for claims "and no compelling evidence of psychic phenomena has been found in more than 75 years of experiments being carried out."

2. Incorrect information "although their work is not published in peer reviewed journals."

3. Use of out dated report from CSICOP members "In 1988 the U.S. National Academy of Sciences gave a report on the subject."

4. The ludicrous claim that the PA is not a notable organization relative to the subject of psychics.

5. Moving the article away from general cultural themes to some bigtime debate between opposing camps over scientific validity.

We came to a consensus before not to do this. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 22:05, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I do not believe there was a consensus developed with both anti-science and science editors broadly. I changed the lead back to a real NPOV, by not giving undue weight to fraudulent fringe theories that lack reliable sources and verification. I appreciate the concerns listed above, which I will endeavor to address later. They are worthy of discussion. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 07:00, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Orange - I'd appreciate it if you would take the time to edit the changes in, rather than simply reverting. when you revert blindly like this we all lose potentially good changes along with the ones you dislike, and it becomes very difficult for the page to advance (because good and bad get thrown out together), as well as generating to unnecessary conflict. I'll add that slightly more than half of your recent edits on this page have been nothing more than effective reverts, which (I think) is sufficient to indicate a pattern. Please AGF that we are all working towards the same end here (i.e., a decent article), and that we will work with you. don't turn editing into a mere obstacle course, because that gets no one anywhere. --Ludwigs2 07:14, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I did not revert. Please refactor your uncivil personal attacks. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 07:16, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you did revert [2]. You took out RS, criticism, all sorts of stuff. Blindly reverting. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 08:09, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Orange. I'm sorry if you took that as a personal attack. I thought it was a fairly neutral way of making the request. however, if you truly believe that was intended as a personal attack, please open a wikiquette or make a request for mediation so that we can discuss the matter properly. I will be more than willing to participate. simply suggesting that I'm making an 'uncivil personal attack' on a talk page accomplishes nothing. --Ludwigs2 18:11, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I see that there's a claim of a prior consensus, and a challenge that it was not a real consensus... Could someone please provide a link so others could take a look? Thanks, --Elonka 20:54, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Or else take this POS article out and shoot it. Of course, my crystal ball tells me that my desire will not be granted, yet my evisceration of an owl and the spreading of its entrails on a large livid stone say otherwise. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 22:01, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Being insulting and sarcastic is a bullying tactic. Please don't do that. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 22:38, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

British Association

(unindent) Here are 2 newspaper reports from 2006 [3] [4], where a spokesperson from the Royal Society gives the unequivocal view of the RS of a session of the British Association given over to paranormal researchers including Rupert Sheldrake, Perrot-Warwick scholar at Trinity College, Cambridge:"The Scientific and Medical Network, which is organising this session, lies far from the scientific mainstream and the list of speakers reflects this. Modern science is based on a rigorous evidence-based process involving experiment and observation. The results and interpretations should always be exposed to robust peer review." Trinity College also has the physics Nobel laureate Brian Josephson, who not only runs his own mind-body centre in the Cavendish laboratory (he is the only permanent member), but also espouses many fringe theories, including cold fusion and water memory. If wikipedians wish to question the existence of a scientific establishment, such as the Royal Society, the NSF and other university funding bodies, and their failure to support research into paranormal phenomena, then they are trying to create an alternative reality on wikipedia. It is an unfortunate but true fact that institutions like the National Academy of Sciences, the Royal Society, the CNRS, etc, etc, are the principal representatives of current mainstream scientific thought. To suggest otherwise is perverse: it would certainly run counter to everything that this encyclopedia supposedly represents. It seems to be futile to push a Never-never-land view of the scientific community which does not represent reality. Mathsci (talk) 22:58, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I am not even sure what you're trying to say? That these societies occasionally sponsor fringe theory discussions? That's not an endorsement, that's spirited debate. Let the fringies come in to show their non-science, point out how bad it is, laugh at them, and move on. Are there Nobel Prize winners that have moved on beyond science? Yes, Linus Pauling comes to mind. Then there's Peter Duesberg who is a member of the National Academy of Sciences and who suddenly, out of the blue, became an AIDS Denialist. Just because they might have credentials, doesn't mean we should laugh them out of the building. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:06, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

No, the contrary. In this case the Royal Society were extremely critical of the initiative of the British Association to showcase paranormal researchers. Robert Winston, past president of the BA, was equally critical. The reactions to this event provide a fairly rare chance to see the reactions of mainstream science to paranormal researchers. Prior to this Brian Josephson's predictions about quantum mechanics and telepathy, unwittingly reported in an official millenium leaflet of the Royal Mail, accompanying stamps of Nobel laureates, created a similar stir in 2000. Mathsci (talk) 23:30, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I"m still not sure what you're trying to say, but based on our comments, the Parapsychological Association may be notable, but it's still not scientific. Just like the Discovery Institute, it's an association that says it's science, but we don't actually have to believe them. Parapsychology is a pseudoscience, so an association trying to overturn that problem with their "science" is not really important to the discussion. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:33, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I think I am in agreement with you that paranormal research is not classified as science. I thought it helpful to look at what happens in the UK. I imagine that is hard for Trinity College to fill the Perrot-Warwick sholarship: it has in the past (eg 1995) been held by sceptics of the paranormal. At the BA meeting, other places where people dabble in the paranormal in UK universities were represented (for example the Koestler Institute in Edinburgh University) but the claims made by the representatives were not accepted by mainstream scientific commentators. I think that the event I have described and the reaction to it shows that in the UK mainstream scientists regard it as pseudoscience. I am not aware that any notice at all is taken of the PA by mainstream science institutions in the UK. On the other hand the BBC has produced TV programmes promoting the paranormal. Public ignorance of science is something that the Royal Society and the CNRS make some effort to correct, by "popularization" (or "vulgarisation" in France), but is a slow process and can easily be wrecked by one episode of Dr Who. Mathsci (talk) 16:11, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I think that's mixing apples and oranges. 'pseudoscience' refers to activities which claim or appear to be scientific, but violate a reasonable definition of the scientific process; it does not refer to people or organizations or even topics of investigation. pseudoscience is purely a methodological concern. trying to apply it to anything else is mere smoke and mirrors. are there sources which suggest that the PA uses bad methodology? if not, then where are you going with this? I'll note in passing that there are sources that say the Discovery Institute follows poor scientific methodology. --Ludwigs2 02:31, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Mathsci, did you read the debate between Sheldrake and Wolpert? I don't see how the rest of it is helping build an article. Surely you aren't still, after all these years, trying to prove parapsychology is a pseudoscience? Ok, it's a pseudoscience. Shall we agree on that? All Wikipeida editors think parapsychology is a pseudoscience. We don't treat it any differently in the article because of that, because our opinion is original research. Our opinions don't matter. This is all shooting the breeze, and I think we just need to move on. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 04:03, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

amen to that. --Ludwigs2 04:10, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I think the newspaper articles I quoted highlight the fact that the mainstream scientific community in the UK does not recognize that paranormal phenomena have been shown to occur. Mathsci (talk) 16:11, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, yes. They appear to be a useful resource for the response in the UK, and it looks like something to add to the article. Which leads us on to "5. Moving the article away from general cultural themes to some bigtime debate between opposing camps over scientific validity." This isn't a "general cultural theme", it's blatant pseudoscience, as shown by the PA's statement, and fails every time it's scientifically tested. OK, there's a tiny fringe view that there may be something sort of statistically odd, but our remit is to represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view; and, moreover, explain how scientists have received pseudoscientific theories. . . dave souza, talk 20:41, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Questions

Apologies if some of these might be out of date- but they give a good overview of the debate, for pending mediation

Question 1 RESOLVED

Can someone point me to where this says that "psychics provide advice and counsel to millions of clients"? ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 04:27, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

apparently in someone's dreams. there's no mention of it that I can see. --Ludwigs2 04:55, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Then I'll take it out. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 05:17, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Of course, is there any serious doubt that millions of people consult psychics? There are two in my neighborhood alone! Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 01:36, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Question 2

Anyone want to defend the incorrect assertion that "although their [parapsychologists] work is not published in peer reviewed journals."? I'll wait till tomorrow for a substantial source which states as much, before taking it out. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 04:58, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

There's clearly a more detailed issue in that you've pointed to a 1965 study which was published, apparently under a veil of secrecy, and promptly refuted. The question is how to describe publication in "peer reviewed journals" published by a fringe group and not shown in reputable sources such as PUBMED. . . dave souza, talk 08:41, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

No idea what you're talking about, but, just for example, The Journal of Parapsychology is peer-reviewed. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 21:33, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Parapsychological work is published from time to time in peer-reviewed psychology journals. For example, as recently as 2006, this debate:

• Bösch H, Steinkamp F, Boller E (2006). "Examining psychokinesis: the interaction of human intention with random number generators—a meta-analysis". Psychological bulletin 132 (4): 497–523.
• Radin, D.; Nelson, R.; Dobyns, Y.; Houtkooper, J. (2006). "Reexamining psychokinesis: comment on Bösch, Steinkamp, and Boller". Psychological bulletin 132 (4): 529–32; discussion 533–37.

Another random example from the British Journal of Psychology:

• "Distant intentionality and the feeling of being stared at: two meta-analyses". British journal of psychology (London, England : 1953) 95 (Pt 2): 235–47.

--Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 02:34, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, more mainstream journals. There are many more I could list. But I do not accept discounting the parapsychological journals: besides editor's opinion that parapsychology is pseudoscience, there is nothing known to be wrong with them. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 04:40, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Question 3

What did people have against this?

"Early examples of individuals thought by some to have psychic powers include the Oracle of Apollo at Delphi who was thought to provide prophecies from Apollo himself[2] as well as Nostradamus, a French apothecary who is thought by some to have had the ability to predict the future.[3] During the 19th century belief in psychics became more common and many notable individuals gained notoriety including Daniel Dunglas Home." ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 05:06, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

The Oracle at Delphi and Nostradamus are usually considered examples of prophecy; it may confuse readers to conflate this with "psychic powers" without further introduction. The Oracle was believed to be the initiated priestess of a god, not a person with innate powers; are prayer and religious revelation considered to be psychic? --FOo (talk) 09:28, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Um, in some circles, yes. But you're right. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 20:06, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Question 4 (see also question 8)

Anyone want to provide us with some good negative evidence for "no evidence of psychic phenomena has been found in more than 75 years of experiments being carried out" ? ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 05:08, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Since people seem to have failed to check out the next reference, I've added another inline cite tag, and will re-add the qualifier which has been lost in intervening edits. . dave souza, talk 08:09, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Note: that seems to have since been replaced with a more negative statement "The scientific community has rejected claims of psychic phenomena" from a highly questionable source, see question 8. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 21:31, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Depends on what you mean by "evidence". Empirical evidence, that's debated, with parapsychologists on the losing end of the debate. Anecdotal evidence abounds. The neutral way of stating it is that parapsychologists have put forth what they feel is stastical evidence of a psychic effect, but that this has largely been discounted by mainstream scientists who ascribe to it a number of mundane explanations such as publication bias. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 02:42, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, that's another editor opinion. The losing end of any empirical debate is the one not supported by the data. So your interpretation of the situation is controversial. They are on the losing end of the social or rhetorical debate, certainly. Again, it hasn't been discounted (as a general statement) by "mainstream scientists who ascribe" but by "mainstream scientists who ignore" and by "critics who ascribe." There are only a very small few critics who know the data. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 04:25, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

But that's anyway not the point- the sentence has no nuance. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 04:34, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Question 5 NAS

"In 1988 the U.S. National Academy of Sciences gave a report on the subject that concluded there is "no scientific justification from research conducted over a period of 130 years for the existence of parapsychological phenomena."

This is very old, before much of the ganzfeld or presentiment studies.

1. Is it sufficiently relevant 21 years later to include?

2. Is it relevant that two principle members of of the panel, Hyman and Alcock, were from CSICOP, and Hyman is an original fellow of the organization; that the NRC violated its own policy by not having any psychic researchers on the panel; that the chairman of the committee phoned one of the authors of a paper (done for the report) which was positive, asking him to withdraw his conclusions (later saying this was to avoid "mixed signals"). And that the committee could not offer plausible alternatives to the research they looked at, according to the report? (thus contradicting the public statement). ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 05:15, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

It's a problem with fringe areas of pseudoscience that they don't get constant mainstream attention, and given the fact that the date is shown in the context of more recent published research it's reasonable to provide this information in the same way that it's reasonable to cite a 1991 opinion poll. . . dave souza, talk 08:18, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't address the question of very evident potential for bias, etc. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 21:29, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with the quote because it provides a date. If there's anything post-1988 to report in our article, you'd simply write something like "Back in 1988, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences said [blah, blah], however, in 2008 they changed their position stating instead [blah, blah]." Baring a significant reliable source post-1988, there's nothing casting the statement in doubt. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 02:48, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

What reliable source? You see here that the sources such as Radin would be discounted. If you are willing to write articles which give the reader statements to believe without background.... The NAS suppressed data and broke its own rules. In this case, it needs to be so carefully handled that it really shouldn't be put in the lead. I do not speak of what can be done here, really, but of what would be done if we wanted to best serve the reader. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 04:29, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

By Wikipedia standards, National Academies of Science are considered to be reliable sources. If criticisms of this particular NAS report exist in other reliable sources, then those can also be added. We are not here to judge whether we approve of particular sources or not, but to judge whether those sources meet the guidelines. If you don't like the way the guidelines are written, then go to WP:RS and rewrite them. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 01:52, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Another potential problem:

I don't see the above quote anywhere in the report. It's possible I'm just missing it. Does anyone have a page number? I suspect that the quote is from a press conference. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 19:54, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

It's in there, on page 22. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 02:48, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I think what I'm looking at only includes the background papers. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 04:35, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Question 6

The Psychic advice section [5] has remained unsourced. It should not have been inserted without sources, but assuming it can be sourced, could people please provide a short timeframe after which this will have been accomplished, or if not accomplished we can take the section out? ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 05:24, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

This article several months ago (possibly a year or more) was all about parapsychology instead of "psychic". There was a rewrite attempt to give it more information about psychics in pop culture (which is by numbers more notable than parapsychology work). Editors were griping about this and that, and the rewrite attempt burned out. This part was an unfinished section, sort of draft material, and never took off. From my recollection, it looks like it's been rewritten a bit. The idea when it started out was to list statistics about the psychic advice industry -- how many people claimed to be psychic, how much money is made in the industry, that sort of thing. That information would be good in this article. What's there now, not so much. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 02:56, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Question 7

"The scientific community has not accepted this work"

Scientific community as used above is linked to Scientific consensus. However the Scientific consensus is

"the collective judgement, position, and opinion of the community of scientists in a particular field of science at a particular time" [6]

The scientific consensus is not the overall opinion of the scientific community. The scientific discipline which covers psychic affairs is Parapsychology. Thus, the scientific consensus in parapsychology is one thing, and the scientific community has not accepted it. Whether or not we, as editors, believe parapsychology is science does not matter. We have to follow the sources on it. I can provide sources, many of them skeptical, asserting parapsychology is a science. We have 10% of members of the The National Academy of Sciences who felt that parapsychological research should be encouraged- presumably they don't want to encourage pseudoscience. We also have to follow the guidance given in the Paranormal ArbCom [7].

We can, I'm sure, write around such terms, but if anyone wants to cite a scientific consensus, it belongs to parapsychology.

Any objections where the opinion of the editor is not a relevant factor? ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 06:01, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Medical science forms the larger field. As shown by the recent published study, it can be related to specific areas of psychology, with particular reference to cognitive science, neuropsychology and cognitive neuroscience. Of course as pseudoscience with only fringe scientific support other areas of science could be relevant. . . dave souza, talk 08:32, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Martin, I have not been following this as closely as some, so maybe this has been addressed, and I don't want this to come off as condescending:

Is there a citation that parasychology represents an accepted scientific discipline?

The American Acaedmy of Science (I'm throwing them out as an example) maintains relationships with the various organizations that are the professional organizations of the sub branches of science (American Chemical Society, American Geologic Society, American Medical Association, etc). Does the Parasychology Association hold a similar relationship? Not to make this US-centric, but do such relationships exist in other nations with their overarching scientific organizations (like the Royal Society)? I am asking out of ignorance.

I ask this because in the absence of such an association, the PA could be on shaky ground. Not to equate the two, but the Discovery Institute might call itself the leading scientific center to study the biology of creation, but aside from itself, no accepted scientific organization recognizes them. As folks looking at the Discovery Institute know, it takes more than a peer reviewed journal and the claimed use of the scientific method to be a scientific organization.

Also, I would bet (though could not prove this at this point) that there are a handful of members of the NAS that believe in creationism. A small number of scientists (even pHD'd or Nobel Prized, etc) do not add legitimacy to any idea. Only rigorously peer reviewed experimental results lend legitimacy in the sciences (I'm not lecturing on this point, I know that you know this Martin).

Perhaps the solution is to reword this as: "It is the collective scientific consensus of the scientific community .... As this demonstrates that it is the consensus of the relevant fields at this time (biology, medicine, physics, psychology, etc).

At least how the "scientific consensus" is being defined here, this might be more accurate. LonelyBeacon (talk) 13:11, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

The "discipline which covers psychic affairs" is most certainly not parapsychology. Its medicine, physics, probability, astronomy and a host of others. If a psychic/psi practicioner/homeopath claims he can heal with his mind, how is that parapsychology and not medicine? If someone makes the claim that she can move an object with her mind, how is that not physics? Guyonthesubway (talk) 16:37, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Responding to the last question, a delusion isn't physics, but does come under psychology. . . dave souza, talk 20:46, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

The AAAS, certainly. And certainly many other sources and factors. The scientific consensus goes to the discipline or sub discipline. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 20:49, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

If the Royal Society makes a statement, that represents the consensus of a huge group of distinguished scientists of many disciplines. This shows that the narrow definition of consensus among scientists cited above, undoubtedly very convenient for certain purposes, is quite inappropriate and misleading in this context. The definition obviously does not apply to consensus among scientists about pseudoscientific subjects. In extreme cases like this, the pseudoscientific subject is rarely discussed at length, except if some new claim has been made. The constant recourse to wikilawyering over definitions intended for other purposes wears down normal WP editors and is not a helpful way of writing an article. It is a way of justifying an extreme minority fringe point of view. This point of view seems to include a skewed view of how mainstream science operates. Mathsci (talk) 06:40, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

In any case, Parapsychology is a fringe science, with only a few supporters, and, when talking about the general trend of the scientific community, we need not list every single exception, as if they had equal weight to the majority. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 13:31, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

You fail to understand policy, Shoemaker: in physics or anatomy or chemistry parapsychology is a minority view. On the topic of Psychics parapsychology is the scientific discipline which covers the topic. It is therefore the majority scientific view. The only way that would not be true is if parapsychology were not science. That does not mean we ignore the controversy or statements of bodies such as the NAS. The only way what you say could be true is if in an article on physics you consult other disciplines such as anatomy to come up with the majority view on the subject. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 21:04, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Well if you really want to cut the wikilawyering, let's just change it to "scientific community outside parapsychology." The wikilawyering comes in when editors want to decide whether or not there are any scientists in that field, and push their judgment on the reader. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 08:07, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Question 8 California State Board of Education

The scientific community has rejected claims of psychic phenomena,

ref is: <ref name="CaliBoard">{{cite book |last=|first=|title=Science Framework for California Public Schools|publisher=California State Board of Education|year=1990}}</ref>

This reference does not speak for the scientific community.

Further, it is in dispute other places. For months, I've been asking for a quote from it, to see if it says what it's being use to source... and the request has been ignored. Now it's being used to source the opinion of the entire scientific community! I would request that either a quotation be provided, or the source removed. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 20:57, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

That source was used on the parapsychology article to verify that the California State Board of Education has called it pseudoscience in their science education standards literature. As a source, it does not verify the statement written above. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 03:00, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Question 9

"and no compelling evidence of psychic phenomena has been found." is sourced to a single study which claims to present compelling negative evidence, but this is not something WP can claim. Further, science is a dialectic adversarial process, and there has not been time for peer-reviewed responses, so far as I know.

Furthermore, this article should be geared to the general reader. The general reader does not know the scientific definition of "compelling evidence," which is that the evidence absolutely compels you to believe it. Thus the statement, even if it were to be considered well sourced and true and uncontroversial, does not convey the message in an accurate manner. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 02:42, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Some people believe that no "compelling evidence" of evolution has been found. (They're wrong about evolution, but they do not feel "compelled" to believe in it.) Talking about "compelling evidence" throws the discussion directly into a fight about standards of evidence, shifting burdens of proof, and a whole raft of other distractions.

Can we say instead that no theory of psychic phenomena has become established? --FOo (talk) 09:32, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

That would be great, and in those words. A truly valid criticism that the reader would be helped by knowing. (The words "compelling evidence" have a special meaning in science.) ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 19:41, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Question 10

"A study using neuroimaging published in 2008 provides the strongest evidence yet obtained that paranormal mental phenomena do not exist"

How is it that WP is accepting the author's claim for this one study, among hundreds, at face value? And since we only have access to the abstract, we don't even know what he's basing that on. A statement like that at least requires nuance. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 21:04, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

From shear opinion alone "strongest evidence", that would need to be an attributed statement. Someone else may feel that some other evidence or argument is stronger. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 03:04, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

comparative statements like 'strongest evidence yet' need to have some effective standard for comparison, otherwise they turn into weasel words (e.g. 'cats are the largest mammals yet seen' is perfectly true if all you've ever seen are mice, but it is a very misleading statement). add that you can't (logically speaking) have evidence that something doesn't exist - you can only lack evidence that is does exist - and this whole statement seems suspect. --Ludwigs2 02:48, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, just for the interest: Psi doesn't exist as anything like a conventional entity such as gravity or light. If it exists it does so by rules, if rules is the right word, which are different than other forces. Metaphors such as "fields" etc. don't apply well. Experiments which assume that psi is going to behave the way other forces do (especially experiments which assume you can isolate the effect as I think this one does) are basically flawed. There is a problem in the field of experimenters from outside who make such assumptions without consulting professionals, thinking they can design productive experiments based on conventional knowledge. This looks to me much like designing a ganzfeld experiment which uses a stimulus which is supposed to be stronger, then saying that this is good proof the effect doesn't exist. Ganzfeld seems to only work with certain types of stimulus, visual. But there was an analysis by skeptics which took into account other types of stimulus rather than direct replications. They said that there was not a significant effect. But when you take out the other types of stimulus, then it gets significant again (all this from memory, could be wrong). ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 03:36, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

ugh. well, without disagreeing with what you say (because I don't really disagree), the problem here on wikipedia is not a science problem, it's a synthesis problem. science-wise, If Ganzfeld really is replicable, then there's nothing wrong with other scientists doing experiments with different conditions and getting zilch. at best that would show that something which works doesn't work quite the way that people think it works, which would only help to refine the experiment. wikipedia-wise, though, we shouldn't be trying to ferret out the scientific truth of something that scientists haven't overtly ruled on. for example, scientists have actively discarded the phlogiston theory of combustion (and I'll pause a moment to register astonishment that my spell-checker recognized phlogiston as a valid word) in favor of oxygen combustion; phlogiston is dead in the water. however, they have not yet offered a similar appraisal of psychic abilities, and efforts to overextend specific acts of research to impute such an appraisal either way is just opinion-mongering. or so it seems to me... --Ludwigs2 04:02, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Ugh? LOL about your spellchecker. What happens on WP -and elsewhere- is that such results are waved as flags and pointed to. There are hundreds of studies, differing meta-analysis, etc. out there, and the dispute overall is acknowledged by everyone to not be at an end. See the last quote by Hyman here [8] (note that in the paragraph above, the paper was 2001, and Hyman quote is from 1995). But here we are basically trying to give the reader a sense of assurance that the reader should not be able to derive from us.

The funny thing is that skeptics have sometimes acknowledged that the results would be considered proof if the intrinsic improbability factor didn't exist.

I don't mean to sound like I'm advocating for the existence of psi, as I'm always being accused of doing. It's just that if you observe the debate you know that there are two real sides to it, and also that neither side is fairly treated on WP. The skeptical side isn't given a fair hearing because the skeptics here are utterly ignorant of their own POV, apparently. I'd write it for them, but what would happen is that the skeptical bit of an article would be left alone, while any response would be attacked mercilessly. Also, responses need more detail to be full, and that is seen as undue weight, though it isn't. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 04:20, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Compromise

Copied from Orgone

Yes, kind of redundant. You want to tackle Psychic in the same way? OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:23, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I would certainly hope we could tackle Psychic that way. The problem is that there I could agree with a statement that there is "little support in the scientific community" but I couldn't agree to statements that say or imply that parapsychologists can't be scientists, or, for example, that their work isn't published in peer reviewed journals. Or statements that there is "no evidence." But there are certainly statements I'd agree to which would give a good idea of the extent to which their views are accepted by the larger scientific community. Also, I can agree to attributed statements of how they are criticized, perhaps even including the word pseudoscience if you wish. I'm against all general statements like "scientists say that..." I'm against the implication or statement (if not attributed) that parapsychologists are not scientists or that the "scientific consensus" is "no evidence." ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 23:44, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Let's see what we can do over the weekend, and if we can't resolve it by Monday we can go ask for mediation, alright? ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 03:58, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'm not in favor of calling Parapsychologists "pseudoscientists" since I think they "try" to be scientists in good faith. Therefore, I could agree with you. Not sure if anyone else will, however, but maybe we can create a trend. What else is a bone of contention? OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 01:24, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, well that was what the "question" section above was for. There are incorrect statements, and POV statements, and bad sourcing. I need to do some research on the NAS bit, because there were complaints from people who contributed papers, and also the composition of CSICOP members is kind of important. But I just got back, and something has come up so I have to be gone tomorrow also. Likely the next day I'll have time. Can we put it off? Sorry..... ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 02:03, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm fine with a delay. So you are going to make me read all those sections above? Can I whine? I hate reading long sections of material (grumble, whine, bitch, moan). Just ping me when we need to get this done. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 16:40, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think we should call any person a pseudoscientist -- although pseudoscience is not usually defined by whether its practitioners are acting in good faith. It's just not necessary to go ad hominem.

It seems to me that we can provide the reader with adequate information about the relation of science and psychic claims without making conclusory statements. If the evidence shows that decades of parapsychology research have yielded no established theory of psychic abilities, that tells the reader what they need to know, without us pronouncing judgment on the demarcation problem or calling anyone a "pseudoscientist". --FOo (talk) 18:24, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I happen to agree here. William Behe, who pushes pseudoscientific concepts, is hardly ever called a pseudoscientist. I'm not even sure that's a real descriptive. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:06, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

That is the way Wikipedia works with this type of subject; a bog standard classical mechanics level of science, reason and logic to match, insult the subject and people working in the field. The scientific method can be applied irrespective of subject but, to self-styled sceptics and similar, if it is applied to certain subjects the science is pseudo-science irrespective of care, methodology, etc., with a similar attitude to practitioners. If it was a matter of something being searched for for decades with no proof arising form the efforts expended be classed as pseudo-science the search for the Higgs Boson would amount pseudo-science and the ten of thousands of scientists who have been engaged in that search would be pseudo-scientists but logic and consistency are not exactly strong suits among such people. Similarly with the falsifiability and repeatable experiments by numerous people, etc., arguments; straightforward at the school laboratory level but not always elsewhere, but still applicable, after all such matters as evolution and the existence of black holes have been proved by repeated experiment, have they not? RichardKingCEng (talk) 22:29, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree.. Lets treat parapsychology just like the search for the Higgs Boson. Every single bit of the peer reviewed science on parapsychology should be allowed here! Every bit of the experimentally tested base theory on which parapsychology is based! All of the well reviewed and tested math! ............ Anyone? Anyone? >sound of crickets< I thought so. Moving on. Guyonthesubway (talk) 22:36, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I most gratefully accept your proposal, and will, if no one objects, edit accordingly. Indeed, just yesterday I proposed the exact same thing at another article. Thanks!!! Uh, I mean crick! crick! crick! crick! crick! crick! crick! crick! crick! I don't think we should get too far into it in this article, however. But that's exactly the right way to go about it. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 07:10, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, you're both right. I would clearly agree that there is no good evidence for psychic phenomena. However, RichardKingCEng is right in that owing to the issues of falsifiability and repeated experiments, the work at the LHC should be classified as pseudoscience as should certain predictions of the Theory of Relativity like Gravity Waves. Accordingly, the wikipedia articles on both those topics (as well as the article on string theory) should be edited to say that they are all pseudoscientific topics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.68.73.101 (talk) 00:13, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

OM- I'll try and summarize the problems with the lead, if you like. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 07:12, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

A bit of background

"Psychic" matters are studied both with scientific rigor, and without it, as well as being the subject of beliefs that do not have scientific backing. Mainstream science tends to neither study, nor express interest in psychic matters. This is for various reasons based on professional culture, reputation, publication, falsifiability, conservatism, and past history of the field. A minor branch of science, known as "parapsychology", attempts to study psychic matters on a scientific basis, however the topic is generally treated as controversial and marginal by scientists outside its own field. Research outside the scientific world is usually not considered to meet the basis of formality needed to scientifically prove any given result, although some matters have been studied now and then, and skeptics ("debunkers") are often given credence in demonstrating the need for rigorous evidence-based testing. [9]

——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 01:52, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Summary of problems with the lead

This is a summary of problems in the lead, covered in more detail in the "Questions" sections above. As requested by OrangeMarlin

"refers to the claimed ability"

Qualifiers inserted again, despite consensus [10] and the Paranormal ArbCom.

I agree. Save it for the part of the lead that "critiques." OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 19:45, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

"hidden from the normal senses"

Normal versus....... abnormal, giving a sense that psychic senses would be "abnormal" if they existed.

I agree. If Psychic senses existed, then they'd be normal. Or they don't exist. They're not abnormal. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 19:46, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

"through what is described as extra-sensory perception,"

The "described" part is another unnecessary qualifier, per above.

Added words that actually make it hard to read. So, I agree. This is getting to easy.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 19:46, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

"A large industry exists where psychics provide advice and counsel to clients,[2] though debunkers attribute such putative powers to intentional trickery or self-delusion."

I don't know about the word "debunkers." I think sometimes they would embrace that word. We should not juxtapose criticism, especially not in the same sentence, joined by the WP:WTA "though"

Debunker sounds weird. How about "researchers"? "Scientists"? This might be the one location I might actually find "skeptic" to be all right to use. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 19:48, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

"Skeptic" or "Critic" would be fine. I suggest, though, that we take out the whole thing (including the section of the article) till it can be sourced, then re-insert once the work is done (maybe in a different place). ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 01:58, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

"Some famous contemporary psychics include Miss Cleo, Sylvia Browne, and John Edward.[7][citations needed]"

This may have WP:BLP implications, as they are being criticized without sources per the previous sentence. In addition, the source is for the psychic phone industry, and doesn't cover these kinds of psychics. And the sentence is unsourced, though that may not matter.

How about include maybe famous psychics, contemporary or otherwise? Not being a believer in psychics, I'm not very useful here, but I always assumed that the telephone psychics were a "lower class" of individuals. I'd be willing to add back just famous or notable ones. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 19:51, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't know of any notable phone psychics. But when sourcing the section (see comment above) one might find some. This could be added as the last sentence of the first paragraph, and kept as is. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 01:58, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

"The scientific community has rejected claims of psychic phenomena,"

This has the rather direct implication that parapsychologists are not part of the scientific community. It also implies that the opinions of non-experts are somehow relevant because they are "scientists," ignoring the fact that those scientists may be trained in entirely different fields. Also, it implies that the "scientific community" is a monolith, rather than sub-divided into disciplines which alone are qualified to speak on their various subjects- the latter being a deeply accepted verity. Also, the scientific community in general has not really rejected, it just has not accepted. The rejection is from major skeptics. The NAS report is not a rejection, it is saying it does not accept. Has not found evidence.

I've never liked that statement, and whenever I see it I try to rewrite it. I like your wording, "has not found evidence", but it presumes that it might find it. Like I might find gold hidden in my basement (if I had a basement). How about something like, "science does not accept the findings of parapsychologists." This verbiage does two things. It de facto accepts that parapsychology attempts "real science". I'm sure we can tweak it a bit. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:39, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

"and no compelling evidence of psychic phenomena has been found."

Hotly contested yet stated as an absolute, sourced to a single article (for which there hasn't been time for a peer reviewed response). Should be attributed, if used at all.

OK, the problem here is there has been no evidence found. But scientists rarely seek out opportunities to research the negative--researching a positive hypothesis is the usual method. I'll try to find some other sources. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:41, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

"A study using neuroimaging published in 2008 provides the strongest evidence yet obtained that paranormal mental phenomena do not exist."

As above, just a claim by a single article, but being accepted as gospel. This source has a abstract which provides good sound bites for WP, but is this really good encyclopedia writing?

The study and publication meets every standard of WP:RS. Because we cannot often obtain the full article (I can read them, because I have access to medical articles, mostly)--the abstract parapharases the results, and is just as peer-reviewed as the remainder of the article. Just because there is only one article, I don't think that's problematic. However, I find it problematic to isolate single articles (although I might have written that sentence in a fit of spite) in any article. I think this sentence and the following one can be combined in one NPOV sentence with several citations. I'm going to sandbox the lead in a new section with our suggestions, and see if we can complete it. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:46, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

"In 1988 the U.S. National Academy of Sciences gave a report on the subject that concluded there is "no scientific justification from research conducted over a period of 130 years for the existence of parapsychological phenomena.""

That's fine as far as it goes. It doesn't mention the really deep problems with the report, or the complaints of those who submitted papers. It doesn't mention the fact that it's badly dated.

Well, that's a summary. It's gotten better recently, the claim about "no peer review" has been taken out (: ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 02:19, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

So let's do something. We shouldn't just leave the article in this state. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 22:02, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I want to respond to each of your concerns. Do you mind if I answer each by breaking up your comments above? That's usually bad form, but it might help in responding. Just answer here as soon as you can. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:09, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Go ahead. Might help to use five = signs headings. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 22:21, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Compromise lead

The word psychic (/ˈsaɪkɪk/; from the Greek psychikos—"of the soul, mental") refers to the ability to perceive things hidden from the five senses through extra-sensory perception, or to those people said to have such abilities. It is also used to refer to theatrical performers who use techniques such as prestidigitation and cold reading to produce the appearance of such abilities.

Belief in psychic phenomena is widespread in the United States, where a 2005 Gallup poll revealed that 41 percent of Americans believe in extra-sensory perception. Psychics appear regularly in fiction and science fiction, such as the The Dead Zone by Stephen King and Jean Grey from the Marvel comic book universe. A large industry exists where psychics provide advice and counsel to clients. Skeptics attribute such powers to intentional trickery or self-delusion.

The U.S. National Academy of Sciences delivered a report on the subject that concluded there is "no scientific justification from research conducted over a period of 130 years for the existence of parapsychological phenomena." Science does not accept the findings of parapsychologists, and no evidence of psychic phenomena has been found in a recent study. Studies have also disputed the statistical analysis of the conclusions of parapsychology research.

Based on martinphi's and my comments. First draft. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:37, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Removed "though" per Martinphi's suggestion.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 03:05, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Comments on compromise lead

The most famous and notable instances of psychics include the TV psychics and psychic advice psychics. We need to mention them in the lead. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:21, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I think that this section shouldn't include psychics that even "parapsychologists" reject. Maybe in one of the sections within the body of the article. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 03:07, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

But why? This isn't an article about what "parapsychologists" think are psychics. This is an article on "psychic abilities". Also, I'm not sure that parapsychologists actually "reject" TV psychics and psychic advice advocates. I have no evidence for this, anyway. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:18, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

First paragraph: good

OK, Done.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 03:07, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Second paragraph: take out the word "though" and just start out with a new sentence.

OK, Done. Reads better anyways.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 03:07, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

More to do

Third paragraph:

The U.S. National Academy of Sciences delivered a report on the subject that concluded there is "no scientific justification from research conducted over a period of 130 years for the existence of parapsychological phenomena."[7]

Change to

In 1988 the U.S. National Academy of Sciences delivered a report on the subject that concluded there is "no scientific justification from research conducted over a period of 130 years for the existence of parapsychological phenomena."[7] Since that time parapsychologists have continued their work, which they say has produced significant results.

That last sentence is only right. The report is very very badly dated. Here is a source, for one small area of parapsychology:

Bösch, H.; Steinkamp, F.; Boller, E. (2006). Examining psychokinesis: The interaction of human intention with random number generators- A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 132, 497-523

Here is what Hyman (CSICOP member) said in 1995, and even that is dated as further studies have been done:

I want to state that I believe that the SAIC experiments as well as the contemporary ganzfeld experiments display methodological and statistical sophistication well above previous parapsychological research. Despite better controls and careful use of statistical inference, the investigators seem to be getting significant results that do not appear to derive from the more obvious flaws of previous research. —Ray Hyman, The Journal of Parapsychology, December 1995

So I think it is well justified to put in that sentence.

"Science does not accept the findings of parapsychologists" I don't understand what you say above: if "Science" doesn't accept it, and parapsychologists do, then they can't be scientists.

"and no evidence of psychic phenomena has been found in a recent study"

Yes, but this gives that one study extreme prominence. It's too new to have been subject to the scientific process, and it makes large claims. OrangeMarlin, let me give an example: let's say you were editing the Recreational drug use article and there was a study which said that Recreational drug use was half as dangerous as previously thought. Editors wanted to put in "A recent study found that Recreational drug use was half as dangerous as previously thought." What would you do? It's a new study. It hasn't stood the test of time, and hasn't been criticized. How do you weight it? (It's really hard to put things in the lead which need nuance.)

Second criticism of the sentence: it's as if the recent study is isolated, like there isn't ongoing research, and that is the end of it. It totally twists the reality of the situation, which is that this is only a small part of an ongoing cycle of the adversarial scientific dialogue.

Here is what I would say:

In 1988 the U.S. National Academy of Sciences delivered a report on the subject that concluded there is "no scientific justification from research conducted over a period of 130 years for the existence of parapsychological phenomena."[7] Since that time parapsychologists have continued work, which they say has produced significant results. Beyond the field of parapsychology the scientific community does not accept the existence of psychic abilities. Disputes are ongoing about the conclusions which can be drawn from the statistical analysis of laboratory experiments, with critics saying the results may be explained by such things as publication bias.

Note the new Psychological Bulletin ref at the end from 2006. We need to expand the section on research to encompass a little bit of this, I guess, but for now I'd be happy to just have it in the lead. It requires a lot of research. Here is a link to the new source [11].

I think we're definitely on the right track here. Thanks for your work (: ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 01:09, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

What Martinphi fails to appreciate is that the NAS report came out at a time when parapsychology was at is pinnacle: there was legitimate rumblings among certain high-minded academics that parapsychology may have been on to something. Since the report, the reputation of parapsychology has steadily tumbled into the dumpster to where it is today, alongside creation science and perpetual motion inventors. By means of useful comparison, if you look at the last report of the NAS about so-called "creation science", it occurred at about the same time when, coincidentally, creation science was gaining traction in certain US public schools. Today, creation science is ignored but it has, according to its proponents, "continued to develop". Should we include such points in our article on the subject? No! The beliefs of advocates are unverifiable assertions. Just because creation science advocates believe that their ideas have progressed since the 1980s doesn't mean that the NAS report which denounced creation science as pseudoscience is "badly dated". It only means that the advocates will probably think that the report is badly dated since they have an incentive to do so.

That's what's going on here. Martinphi is a parapsychology-advocate. He thinks the NAS report is badly dated because he thinks that "progress" has been made in parapsychology. However, he is not a reliable source for this. It may (or may not) be true that parapsychologists think that there has been progress made, but Martinphi has not provided any sources where a parapsychologist has said "significant progress has been made since the NAS report." All he has is his own opinion of the matter.

Martinphi's opinion on the matter is not at all encyclopedic. Therefore, his attempt to "couch" the NAS report as a "dated" report is essentially original research of an opinionated sort. Double whammy. I suggest ignoring Martinphi's objections until he provides a source which actually documents "progress made" in the last 20 years vis-a-vis the NAS report. If he cannot provide such a source, his objection should be considered the opinion of a believer and not actionable.

ScienceApologist (talk) 17:44, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

"Claimed" ability

As per the recent consensus, I've removed the word "claimed" from the lead. It's POV and unnecessary--"psychic" refers to an ability, regardless of whether or not the ability exists. Besides, the word "claim" is discouraged under WP:WTA. Cosmic Latte (talk) 13:52, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Great, thanks (: ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 00:27, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I would prefer if we made a big agreement to the lead rather than piecemeal it. The reason is that anyone (myself included) can point to an archived consensus. Therefore, I am going to revert this change (not because I disagree with it), but so we can come to an overall consensus. I'm going to try to help create the lead. Real life is calling me out to help out on something important for the next 2-3 months, so this is really the last thing I'm going to do on Wikipedia for a couple of months. So I'm going to focus. Or at least try. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:09, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure the arbcom case strictly applies here: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Paranormal/Proposed_decision#Adequate_framing discusses biographical articles, likewise Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Paranormal/Proposed_decision#Cultural_artifacts. In the context of the main article, "psychic" no longer frames the subject, it is the subject. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 18:57, 3 November 2008 (UTC)