Talk:Telepathy/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Mainstream Scientific View

I think it's important that the mainstream scientific view, that telepathy is viewed as pseudoscience, is mentioned in this article. siddharth 05:34, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

While it is true that telepathy's status is in doubt, I would not be so confident in a statement that all success was the result of error. Perhaps "Successes have often been accused as being the result of error" would suffice as a better introduction.

Alan Turing (of Turing Test fame) was a believer in telepathy. It's in the key essay that he wrote on the subject. He eventually took cyanide due to being persecuted for being gay. He also helped win the Second World War by breaking German codes. Quite a guy.

I am sorry Alan Turing lost his Government Security Clearance for being Gay. I wonder how the Government classifies people who believe in extrasensory perception.

Naming a scientist (and I have my doubts that Turing qualifies) that believes in a subject is no proof that it's accepted by mainstream science, as it's generally possible to find a fringe scientist (or, in the case of Turing, a scientist in another field) who will support any pseudoscience or religion. You have to look for consensus. (Bold text added in edit)

So, let's go into how we can determine if mainstream science would accept telepathy or not (I feel that guiding you through the scientific thought-process would be the most educational). First, science would note that there have been extremely few studies done on telepathy that contain statistically significant positive results and were not flawed. The small number is less than 5%, the margin for statistical significance, so when the studies are taken as a whole, the fact that less than 5% show 95% significance is itself insignificant. (Look at it this way: You're rolling a 20-sided die. The number 20 has a 5% chance to show up. If you roll it once and 20 shows up, that's technically statistically significant that 20 is more likely to show up than it should be. But if you roll it a lot of times, on average only around 5% of your rolls will be 20's. This is like only 5% of your studies showing 95% significance, so when they're weighted together they're found to be insignificant.
Then, science would also note that there have been no studies disproving telepathy, but remind itself that this is simply because it's logically impossible to disprove a phenomenon. For instance, it's impossible to prove that there aren't backwards-flying hippogryphs who deliver pizza to the president of Sweden on nights when no one's watching, but no sane person would take this as evidence that there are.
This is also a problem with arguments against the existence of telepathy: Absense of evidence isn't evidence of absense. So, science at this point must conclude that telepathy possibly exists, and possibly doesn't exist. Now, it goes on to determine whether it is likely that it would exist.
For this, we must extend the phrase used above to accomodate the Modus Tollens exception: Absense of evidence isn't evidence of absense unless it is expected that evidence would have been found if this were present. This means we can phrase the argument in this manner:

• If p exists, we would expect to find evidence q by investigative manner m.
• Investigative measure m was undertaken, and it failed to find evidence q.
• Therefore, it is most likely that p does not exist.

Rephrasing it for our particular argument:

• If telepathy exists, we would expect to see statistical evidence of it in the many tests that have been performed to test it.
• Many tests have been performed to test for telepathy, and there is no statistical evidence that it exists.
• Therefore, it is most likely that telepathy does not exist.

Now, anticipating a couple objections: First, some may object that the experimental setting might preclude the functioning of telepathy for some unknown reason. While I admit this is possible, this complaint forces us to ask the advocate of telepathy to provide some other form of proof, and no proof of an acceptable form has been provided.
The second objection I expect to be raised is about "experiential evidence." There is a good reason that science doesn't accept this form of evidence in its reasoning, and it's that humans are immensely prone to bias and error. In this case, it's the Confirmation Bias that comes into play. For instance, a mother thinks of her children often in normal situations, and also often worries about them (particularly if they're young). This worry isn't unfounded, as children frequently do get into trouble of some sort. So, if the mother happens to be worrying about her child at a time when the child actually is in trouble, and later learns about it, she'll immediately note the coincidence. This stands out in her mind (and possibly the times that she doesn't worry about her child and her child isn't in danger as well), but she has to weigh the frequency of this against two other factors: The frequency of times she worries about her child and her child isn't in danger, and the frequency of times she doesn't worry about her child and her child is in danger. If both of those are high enough, it means that there could be no correlation between her worrying and her child being in danger.
But that isn't how the human mind seems to work. Studies have shown that when people are asked what information is necessary to judge whether a correlation exists, most people studied said that only the information about the number of times the two are present together and the two are both absent are needed. Statistically, you need both that data and the contradictory data in order to judge whether the correlation is present. It's also notable that when people are asked to judge whether there's a negative correlation between two phenomena, they choose to judge only the data that confirms the negative correlation and ignor evidence of a positive correlation. This is why we can't use experiential evidence; people are lead astray by it all too often. --DrLeebot 14:40, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Not that I don't disagree with anything you said about telepathy (I agree with all of it!), I disagree with you refering to Turing as a 'fringe scientist' and "having doubts that he qualifies [as a scientist]". Turing is viewed as the founder of modern computer science, and he is really not viewed as fringe by anyone in the community. I had never heard of him believing in telepathy before, and I found some evidence of it http://cognews.com/1066717766/index_html (the quote is cited)

"I assume that the reader is familar with the idea of extra-sensory perception, and the meaning of the four items of it viz. telepathy, clairvoyance, precognition and psycho-kinesis. These disturbing phenomena seem to deny all our usual scientific ideas. How we should like to discredit them! Unfortunately the statistical evidence, at least for telepathy, is overwhelming." (Turing 1950 p.453)

I think, at that time, the evidence that people we showing for telepathy was not altogether honest, and I think Turing appears now more gullible than stupid, in this respect. But Leebot's point remains, a scientist vouching for a theory doesn't prove anything, especially if it is a scientist in some other domain. Newton had some odd ideas about alchemy, I believe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tyir (talk • contribs) 12:19, 15 June 2006

(Watch the triple negatives there - "Not that I don't disagree" means "I disagree," but that's an irrelevant point here. You clarified it later in this case, but I'm just warning you in case it happens again without clarification and you get misinterpreted.)

As for what I said about Turing, I meant no disrespect towards him; simply that I didn't know personally that he definitely would qualify as a scientist (hence, "have my doubts that he qualifies" being used in the sense of "am not personally sure he qualifies"). Also, though it might seem I implied he was a fringe scientist, I was just speaking in the hypothetical. I've gone back and striked out the first comment and added in clarification on the second.

When writing that, I knew that there was some case I'd heard about in my Critical Thinking class that related to some computer guy referencing strong statistical evidence for telepathy. With your quote there, I'm pretty sure that it actually was Turing, and I think it was the Soal experiment he was referring to (though at this point I can't guarantee that's it, or even an actual person). I'll go check my sources on that and get back so I can complete my refutation of the original argument. (Quick summary: Soal's experiment was flawed simply because he cheated in it and fudged data. It wasn't proven until much later, and even then not everyone who knew of the experiment knew of the refutation.) ---DrLeebot 19:11, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I've found it, and it was Soal. See Soal-Goldney Experiment. I've also added this as an external link at the bottom of the article. Granted, it's definitely POV, but there are already too many in the other direction that one skeptical link is doing more to help balance it out than harm it.

I'm thinking that the best first step towards taking care of the POV issues in this article is to redo the Experiments section. This experiment can be put in, along with criticisms of it, and the same can be done for others. I'll check a few other articles on controversial subjects to see if I can find any parallels to use as a guide for how to write it neutrally.

A question on referencing, though: Since the site I gave used various references to form together points about the experiment, would it be reasonable to just use it as a reference, or should I take each reference it uses individually? ---DrLeebot 19:35, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

After looking at a few parallel articles, it would seem that a section devoted to criticism of the subject matter by the Scientific Community would be appropriate here. ---DrLeebot 19:57, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for being confusing. Agreed about adding a criticisms section. Rereading the page, it is much less POV than it used to be, but I still get the feeling that this page is way to strongly biased in favor of it being legit, considering it is a pseudoscience. I think we should work on this quite a bit. A new section sounds good, also, Recent experiments and Non-classical sciences have to be rewritten. Tyir 23:21, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Revisions to Experiments Section

I've begun the process of completely redoing the experiments section. At the moment, it only covers the Ganzfeld experiments, but I plan to add the Soal-Goldney experiment soon. I also plan to go in and set up references for certain parts of it. To any other editors, please feel free to discuss the format I used, or add on other experiments. ---DrLeebot 16:45, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

DrLeebot -- It's great to see someone doing some serious work on this article! I think the format you used for Ganzfeld experiments is excellent, as is the content. I have a few comments:

• Should this section be titled "Types of telepathy experiments" rather than "Notable experiments"?

I think it's better this way, honestly, even if some of the categories do cover certain types. Ganzfeld Experiments are notable as a group due to the Meta-analysis that has been done over all of the different experiments performed. For most of the other entries that will be put in here, it's likely that they'll be either isolated experiments or a more closely connected string (say, all the dowsing experiments performed as part of the Randi challenge). ---DrLeebot 15:33, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

• Along the same lines, perhaps one of the subsections within each experiment-type section should be "Locations" (or something like that) that lists universities or laboratories where this type of experiment has been performed.

Maybe, though I'm not sure how relavent that would be to someone reading the article. Particularly with the Ganzfeld experiments, the list would be quite extensive. ---DrLeebot 15:33, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

• Citations are needed--possibly following each entry in the "Locations" list. The citation would tell where the results were published or summarized/described.

Oh yes; I'll try to get at that today. ---DrLeebot 15:33, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

And done. Is there a way to make multiple references direct to the same entry in the Notes section, so we don't have the same source repeated there? ---DrLeebot 16:17, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think there is, aside from using <ref>ibid</ref> KarlBunker 16:53, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

• I confess I wasn't familiar with the concept of "psi assumption," so it was a little frustrating not to understand WTH it meant until I got to the bottom of the experiment description. It would be great if you could whip up a brief new WP article for the term.

Ah yes, that one's already on my to-do list. ---DrLeebot 15:33, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

• It took me a while to figure out what "handling cues" refers to; I tried to clarify it.

That looks good, thank you. ---DrLeebot 16:17, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Again, great work. I hope you keep up with this. KarlBunker 17:58, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

A note to 71.109.99.101: Thank you for your contribution, though certain parts of your edits seem to give the section a slant too much towards the pro-telepathy perspective. Notably:

• The change to the first mention of the psi assumption. First of all, you said (uncited) that "Typically, odds against chance are high." This is a vast generalization of all Psi experiments, and gives the impression that most give positive results, when this is notably not the case. I put back in the reference to the Psi Assumption, as I plan to fill in that article soon. I also believe the "Psi-missing" note (that below-chance results are also attributed to telepathy) is notable.
• To the "Randomization" criticism. When you remove the final sentence, the entire section ceases to be a criticism and is thus pointless. I've since added a reference that comfirms this is the case.
• Leaving out most of the explanation and in only the final sentence makes it sound like this criticism is almost supporting the Psi assumption.

---DrLeebot 16:17, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I've updated the section with the Soal-Goldney experiment now, please look over it. Also, note that I left a {{Fact}} template on one of the criticisms at the end which I remember specifically reading about, but which I can't find a source for. I'm almost positive it's true, which is why I put it in; I just can't find the source. ---DrLeebot 20:41, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I've just added in a Randi challenge section, and with that I believe enough is there that the section is no longer a stub. I don't personally know of any other notable experiments that should go in; however I'm open to suggestions (or just go for it yourself). ---DrLeebot 14:54, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to see the J. B. Rhine experiments discussed in this format. Certainly they're among the most notable ESP experiments in terms of history. If that were done, the discussion of Rhine in the "Telepathy in history" section could be shortened way down. Likewise, the Montaque Ullman/Stanley Krippner experiments (if they're worthy of being called that--the brief description makes them sound pretty lame) mentioned in the History section could be discussed in the Experiments section and removed from the History section.

--KarlBunker 20:12, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Ah yes, good ideas. I'm not so familiar with those experiments personally, but I'll see what I can come up with. ---DrLeebot 14:11, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry it took some time, but I've gotten Rhine's experiments up there now. ---DrLeebot 13:47, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

New or Old Phenom

I don't know how this is backed up:

But the sending and receiving of messages from individual to individual by mind alone seems to be a relatively modern idea.

I think the sentence right before it even shows it to be false:

In the Bible for example, some prophets are described as having the ability to see into the future

Those characters, and a few others in antiquity, were given those predictions by god (or some other spirit force). Much are done telepathically between the two characters. It could be said that stories of sending messages without speech or other cues exist in antiquity, however the belief in common telepathic powers is somewhat modern.

It's just an idea because I don't know the subject. It seems this isn't true.JoeHenzi 03:15, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I think you make a valid point, and I've removed that short paragraph.KarlBunker 10:10, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure we should categorize recerving messages from a god as telepathy. First of all, would any prophet dare say they're reading the mind of God? Secondly, if you assume the omnipotence of a god, he/she/it could just plant the necessary thoughts in the mind of the prophet, whether or not they're an actual psychic.

Prophets that claim to see into the future would most definitely be considered Clairvoyents, however. But don't fall into the trap of classifying all forms of ESP under Telepathy. Telepathy is best defined as just mind reading and Remote Viewing. ---DrLeebot 12:43, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Demonstration of Telepathy

A simple demonstration of telepathy can be seen here http://milaadesign.com/wizardy.html Lumos3 10:46, 19 July 2006 (UTC) ;)

While that of course isn't a true example of telepathy, it actually does give an example of one type of trick that is sometimes used to fool people into believing it. Simply repeating the game a few times will show that the number you get is always a multiple of 9 (10X + Y - (X + Y) = 9X), and all the symbols on the multiples of 9 on the last page are the same, and what shows up. ---DrLeebot 12:56, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Telepathy in Fiction

If the "list would grow indefinitly", perhaps it's better to split it off into a seperate article and place a small summary here. Personally I see no reason why we should refrain from mentioning references to fiction -- De Zeurkous (zeurkous@lichee.nichten.info), Thu Aug 3 12:57:32 UTC 2006

Telepathy is such a common element of fiction that I think it's silly to try to list instances of it, either here or on a seperate article. It's like having a section or article on "horses in fiction." However, better to put it in another article than here. KarlBunker 14:08, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

FTL travel is about as common in fiction as telepathy, yet fiction is interwoven in the FTL article. Can't we do the same here and split the rest off? Of course, only notable instances should be listed.

About my "credit" to Star Trek: i'm not crediting Star Trek for the invention of RF-telepathy. And it's not the "standard notion" either -- AFAIK many works of fiction portray it as magic. If it is the "standard notion", why does the article specifically not mention this *at all*? -- De Zeurkous (zeurkous@lichee.nichten.info), Thu Aug 3 14:37:57 UTC 2006

The notion of telepathy as being analogous to radio transmission isn't mentioned in the article because it's too obvious to warrant mention. With some latitude, it is the only way of (semi-)realistically viewing telepathy. Even it a work of fiction protrays telepathy as magic, the operation of it is still analogous to radio transmission. KarlBunker 15:37, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it may be the only way of realistically viewing it, but then again the only way to realistically view glass is as a pile of sand, but not all people know that either. In my opinion, when writing an accurate encyclopedic article, you can't state a technical detail as "too obvious". Even though it may be one line, IMO it has to be mentioned -- De Zeurkous (zeurkous@lichee.nichten.info, Thu Aug 3 16:47:36 UTC 2006

I'm afraid your glass analogy doesn't help me to understand your point. We're only talking about the simple comparison: "telepathy works (would work) something like radio." I'm saying that that comparison is obvious in the sense that there is no alternative to it and therefor it provides no information. Telepathy is defined as thoughts transmitted from one person to another; if you add to that definition "like a radio signal is transmitted to a receiver" you haven't added anything that wasn't obvious in the original definition. KarlBunker 17:19, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

1. I have never thought about telepathy in terms of radio transmission before, but now that you mention it, it does seem obvious. But were it not for the mention here, I don't know whether I would have made the connection at all. So in my mind, that's enough to warrant stating "the obvious." Also do consider that not all who come here speak English as a primary language, so putting in comparisons like that could help some people (helps me on other language pages, when the main phrase goes over my head but it's compared to a phrase that I can parse). Kilyle 08:14, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

2. As to the use of telepathy in fiction...that's the whole reason I came to this article! I didn't expect to see much about telepathy "in the real world" since (basically) it only "really" exists in fiction. (Interesting card tricks aside.) Kilyle 08:14, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

3. It would seem most useful to split the article into real world studies and fictional application. The strongest reason for this is that the two articles necessarily take very difference stances on the reality of the subject matter: The "telepathy in real life" article necessarily takes a skeptical view, points out the numerous reasons to doubt the validity of the studies, etc., whereas the "telepathy in fiction" article would not need to delve into reasons for skepticism (there's no doubt that the abilities exist), but deal with theory, application (usefulness, drawbacks), distinctions, conventions, and so forth. This is the information I was hoping to learn. The distinction between telepathy-by-touch and telepathy-as-radio, for example, is useful, as is the distinction between telepathy-between-anyone and telepathy-between-specific-people (e.g., twins), and the distinction between passive reception (a telepath who can't put thoughts into others' minds) and active transmission (e.g., Jean Grey being able to talk with her non-telepath boyfriend/husband), as well as potential for inducing visions or controlling other minds. There are plenty of Wikipedia articles on various things found only in fiction (werewolves, vampires, FTL travel, IRS refunds...), so simply being fictional isn't a good reason to not include the information. Kilyle 08:14, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

4. Shouldn't "Ghost In The Shell/Satnd Alone Complex" be also included in the list.there are many many events when almost all of them use telepathy. (dragonballtarun@yahoo.co.in)59.94.182.28 06:32, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Telepathy vs. Telekinesis

I've always understood that telepathy relates to the (nonphysical) mind, whereas telekinesis is control over objects. I don't think it's right to say that someone who levitates objects or bends spoons is performing telepathy. Am I wrong, or does this article need to be corrected (near the end where it gives examples of telekinesis and calls them "telepathy")? I'd think that these examples of telekinesis should be moved to a different article, although the telepathy article should have a "see also" link to telekinesis, perhaps with a side note "(manipulating objects with one's mind)". Kilyle 08:14, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Your definitions are correct - even in the last statement about Street Fighter, the two forms are defined as different - read minds vs. move objects. There is a link at the bottom to Psychokinesis, which lists Telekinesis as another form of the word. DrSad 13:53, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Ganzfeld experiments; results

User:Kazuba has modified the figures in this section from:

"claim a hit rate of between 30% and 40%, which is significantly higher than the 25% expected by chance. "

to:

"claim a hit rate of 13%, significantly higher than expected by chance."

with the comment:

"More accurate and easier to understand this way. Chance 25%. Hit rate between 35% and 40%. Looks deceptive."

I don't see how these sets of figures are equivalent, or how the latter is "easier to understand this way". Could Kazuba or someone else explain? KarlBunker 15:55, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Also, Kazuba, please note that you aren't using the "This is a minor edit" flag correctly. See Help:Minor edit. KarlBunker 16:35, 5 September 2006 (UTC

```From what I could gather Utts and Hyman both came to the conclusion the results were 38%, chance being 25%; showing only the difference from chance as 13%. Using the figure of 13% higher than chance gives a more accurate figure than hit rate between 30% and 40%, chance being 25%, and, I think, is much easier to understand by children, layman and grunts like myself. Who is our audience? Only the special people? User:Kazuba 5 Sept 2006

Your edit didn't state "a hit rate of 13% above what would be expected by chance." The meaning of the wording you used was simply "a hit rate of 13%", which is incorrect. In any case, I don't see how the corrected version of your wording is any easier to understand than the original, and as you noted, it's also too specific. Several studies were being grouped together for these figures, and the results covered a range. KarlBunker 17:52, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

```[11][12] connected to nothing visible. Saw nothing visibily cited. (My reference is the only one listed). The figure depends on which collection of data you look at. I went by Utts and Hyman. What we have here is a failure to communicate. We don't talk the same way. It is probably my fault. I'm the grunt. I am terrible with words. Whatever....User Kazuba 5 Sept 2006

[11][12] connected to nothing visible. That was partly my fault; I screwed up the notes when I deleted an old vandalism edit. It should be fixed now. KarlBunker 19:33, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Slight interjection I'd like to make here. I just found this paper of most up to date meta analyses of various psi research. It talks about a new analysis including 30 new studies which actually increased the overall odds of the Ganzfield Study back to statistically significant after the analysis which found the 35% success rate decrease. Don't know if it's worth anything, but certainly an interesting read. Sincerely, Guthrie. P.S. Here's the link. It's off Brian Josephson's Home Page. G: (http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~bdj10/psi/delanoy/delanoy.pdf)

Deleting unsourced claim

I'm deleting the POV-ish unsourced claim in the lead section. there is no Origional research allowed on the enyclopedia, so please do not revert my edit agian. -- Selmo <sup>(talk)</sup> 23:42, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for saying "please", but I'm afraid the answer to your polite request is "no"--I will not refrain from reverting your edit, because your edit is incorrect. If there were any well-supported, replicated experimental results that demonstrated telepathy to the satisfaction of the scientific community, that would be huge, huge news, and it would be common knowledge--on a level with there being widely-accepted evidence of visitation by aliens or whatnot. So it's a very safe, very correct statement to say that no such experimental results exist. KarlBunker 02:11, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

On reflection, I decided that the sentence in question should be changed so that it's even less arguable. It now says that "no positive result has ever resisted scrutiny to the satisfaction of skeptical scientists." KarlBunker 10:50, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I really dislike your bossy additude, Karl. I do not need your permission to edit this article. I'm glad you've at the very least, reworded your sentance. However, if you continue to deny the free edit of Wikipedia, I will be forced to take this to the ArbCom. -- Selmo <sup>(talk)</sup> 16:37, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I've read the source, and it just looks like an opinion peice. There's many reports that telepathy does exist. telephathy is real.com is an example. Now, in my personal opinion, telephathy should'nt be classified as a "physcic power". However, since there is no document to this that I can find, I will not add it to the article.

I will end this reply by warning you that if you revert the article agian, I will have to take the issue to ArbCom.

• It is absolutely impossible to disprove telepathy. The best that can ever be said is that it has not been proved. It can never be proved that something does not exist. If anyone tries to push an illogical opinion into this encyclopaedia article and engages in malicious editing or reversal, I will request assistance from administrators.

Thanks. -THB 16:33, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Selmo, at no point did I imply that you needed my permission to edit. And my "bossy attitude" seems to consist of me saying that I won't follow your instructions about what I can edit. If you go to the Arbitration Committee, they'll tell you that the way to settle edit disputes is to discuss the issues on the discussion page. I did that by explaining what I believe to be incorrect about your edit and your opinion. Your task at this point (if it's not to bossy of me to say this) is to explain to me what you think is wrong about my opinion. KarlBunker 00:20, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

By reverting my edits, and demanding a discussion about it, then say telling me that you will revert my edits anyway, it's as though your trying to control the article. I have already provided a resource talking about why it exists. -- Selmo <sup>(talk)</sup> 00:27, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I could have worded my response more politely, but you got things off to a poor start by say "please do not revert my edit again." That made it sound like you were claiming some kind of control over the article. The better way to open a discussion would be to say "please do not revert my edit again without discussing it here first." KarlBunker 01:02, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

THB, neither my edit nor anything else in the article said that it was a proven fact that telepathy doesn't exist. It said that some/most/skeptical scientists do not believe that telepathy has been validly demonstrated. There's a big difference. KarlBunker 00:20, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't make it true, though. Everything has to be factually accurate. Opinion is not fact. -- Selmo <sup>(talk)</sup> 00:27, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Saying that most/some/4-out-of-5/etc. scientists (or historians or whatever, depending on the topic) believe something is a verifiable fact, and is a relevant statement that is used in many, many articles. KarlBunker 01:02, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

You need to review Wikipedia policies and guidelines, especially the one on verifiability. CovenantD 00:37, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

But that's not what you said. Here's what you said:

"While there have been numerous scientific experiments into telepathy over the years, in the opinion of the scientific community, no positive result has ever resisted scrutiny. Positive results have been demonstrated to be the result of flawed methodology, statistically erroneous conclusions, or could simply not be replicated by independent researchers.[citation needed]"

The big problems are with "in the opinion of the scientific community" and "no positive result has ever resisted scrutiny". The second statement cannot be proved and the first is a thinly-veiled statement of your own opinion.

Incidentally, the reference given to "debunk" telepath clearly states (on the first page!) that the majority of over 1,000 college professors from soft sciences and the humanities and arts surveyed believe in ESP or that it likely exists.

Please understand that I don't believe that telepathy is anything but fiction but that doesn't cause me to act inappropriately in my edits on Wikipedia. There seems to be a history of flouting Wikipedia policies in the process of imposing your own viewpoint, going so far as to repeatedly delete information you don't agree with, judging by your talk page, as well as difficulty respecting others. -THB 06:31, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

THB, I agree with you that "no positive result has ever resisted scrutiny" is a questionable and unsupported statement. I may have defended it at some point, but I wasn't the one that originally wrote it. The statement regarding the scientific community is entirely factual however, and not a "thinly veiled" anything. Unfortunately, surveys of the scientific community regarding the paranormal are rare and hard to find for citation purposes. (The survey of 1,000 college professors you mention doesn't fit the bill, of course.) Instead, the opinion of the scientific community is more apparent in things like the absence of research papers on paranormal topics in mainstream scientific journals, the absence of mainstream scientist's participation in conferences on the paranormal, and the like. It's hard to find a citation that documents "absences" like these, but they are quite well known to anyone who has done a little reading into science and the paranormal. The National Academies Press book that Wmahan mentions in his RFC comment below is a pretty good citation for indicating mainstream scientist's views on the subject. I'm looking for a better one, but if I can't find one and no one has any objection, I'll add it to the article. KarlBunker 14:59, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

KarlBunker, I'm not going to get dragged into a battle with you. (Notice that your defensive comments are getting longer and more tangled.) Whether or not you wrote it, you inserted or re-inserted it into the article. I agree with CovenantD's comments above regarding the need for you to review Wikipedia policies. -THB 16:03, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

A few comments in addition to what I posted below:

• Being willing to discuss disputes is the first step to resolving them. When it remains civil, discussion is not a battle.
• Mediation is a way of facilitating such diologue. Anyone looking to mediation as a way to "win" a dispute is likely to be disappointed.
• I get the impression that the two sides are not as far apart as it might appear, and a compromise can be reached if every effort is made to assume good faith. If it all possible, it's better to focus on content, not your opinions of other editors' behavior. Wmahan. 18:51, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I have reverted the recent changes by KarlBunker referring to telepathy as "a fringe science" until the mediation is resolved. Again, this statement is an opinion, even if KarlBunker gives a reference to someone else who said it. This continued behaviour is reprehensible. -THB 16:50, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry you think so, THB. It's my view that both you and User:Selmo don't fully understand how Wikipedia works. I've added my agreement to the call for mediation in hopes that a WP administrator can explain it to you more convincingly me than I can. KarlBunker 17:02, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

KarlBunker, your condescending attitude is unhelpful and rude. -THB 01:57, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

html comment in the article

I've removed the following hidden html comment from the article text:

Needs a section expanding on what it is, or at least claimed to be. Right now it's heavily POV against

There are a few problems with this: An html comment isn't the place for discussion of an article. If you think the content of the article needs changing, the place to discuss that is here, on the discussion page. That's where people are more likely to see the discussion and can add their own comments. Secondly, this comment isn't clear, and appears to contain two unrelated comments. Needs a section expanding on what what is? Telepathy? A very clear and simple definition is included in article; I don't see where it's lacking. Right now what is heavily POV against what? The article is POV against the existence of telepathy? If someone thinks that, the place to discuss that is again here in the discussion page, and the way to fix that is to add new content that's supported with references. KarlBunker 11:49, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Simply put, this article is lacking a vital section below the TOC. There needs to be a section explaining what telepathy is claimed to be. You look at the lead, it gives an introductory definition but nowhere in the body of the article is there anything that expands on that. And yes, an editors note is a perfectly valid place to leave a statement to that effect. CovenantD 20:06, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

If you want your opinion to be seen by few people and responded to by fewer, than yes, that's a good place to put it. KarlBunker 23:59, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I took the liberty of trying my hand at rewriting the intro. For one, I replaced a much simpler and I think clearer definition of telepathy. I also replaced the disputed statement with one that addresses the heart of the issue - reproducability. To date, no experiment demonstrating the existance of telepathy has been reliably replicable. If there were, then we wouldn't be having this debate. Telepathy would be an accepted phenomenon - even if it remained utterly mysterious. That's why the vast majority of the scientific community do not accept the existance of this or any other paranormal phenomena. These claims are not supported by findings that are reliably and independently replicable. Askolnick 19:51, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I also removed inaccurate statements, such as empathy being a paranormal phenomenon. Hardly. From empathy: "Telepathy is a controversial paranormal phenomenon, which differs in that empathy is based not upon the paranormal but upon sophisticated processing of what is seen and heard in the usual way." Askolnick 20:10, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Askolnick's edits, and they seem to bypass THB's objections, and perhaps Selmo's too. If not, please discuss your objections here. As Wmahan points out above, the purpose of mediation is only to facilitate discussion. If you aren't interested in discussing, a call for mediation isn't going to gain you anything. KarlBunker 21:09, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

The intro is a little more netural. My objection is about the exclusion of the evidence pointing to the direction that telepathy does extst. -- Selmo <sup>(talk)</sup> 23:53, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Selmo, there is NO evidence from any independently replicable experiments that shows "telepathy does exist." (Perhaps that's why you, without explanation, removed this important point.) If there were any evidence from reliably reproducible experiments, it would be added. It's the absence of such that makes telepathy and other paranormal claims the subject of fringe scientists, as well as pseudoscientists and charlatans. Your statement begs the question.

Compare the body of scientific research on telepathy with research on pheremones. Although the scientific study of pheremones is nearly a century younger than the study of telepathy, there's a huge body of scientific findings from reproducible experiments, which show how animals from ants to humans communicate with tiny amounts of biochemical signals. So, where's the evidence from replicable studies of telepathy and other paranormal claims? Was it all sucked down into the Bermuda triangle? No, such evidence does not exist. And we can't "exclude" what does not exist. Askolnick 19:48, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Google is your friend, Askolnick. I'm not tyring to "push POV", and would like to remind you to assume good faith, and not that I'm trying to break any rules. I'm sorry if you feel that I wasn't truthful in my previous justification in why I removed the sentence reminding people that reproducibility is "a hallmark of the scientific process". Yes, by deleting that statment, I may have caused some controversy over weather or not I'm motivated by my beliefs, but my intention was an honest attempt to make the artcle more netural -- Selmo <sup>(talk)</sup> 02:02, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Responses to RfC

First and most importantly, I respectfully suggest that all editors keep in mind Wikipedia's policy of assuming good faith. Like many articles on Wikipedia, this topic can evoke strongly held beliefs and emotions from people with varying viewpoints. I think everyone can agree that the article should be as neutral and accurate as possible. I also advise everyone to avoid threatening to take things to administrators, ArbCom, or similar, at least until the other methods of dispute resolution have been exhausted.

It appears both sides in the "Deleting unsourced claim" debate have valid points. Asking that a disputed claim include a citation, as Selmo did, is a valid and important method of making sure that Wikipedia's articles are verifiable. KarlBunker wants to include the statement that "no positive result has ever resisted scrutiny to the satisfaction of skeptical scientists".

I would support the slightly stronger statement that mainstream scientists nearly universally reject the claimed evidence for telepathy. There is already a source in the article, and after briefly searching, the best additional source I could find was a 1988 report by the US National Research Council that "an evaluation of a large body of the best available evidence does not support the contention that these phenomena exist", referring to paranormal phenomena including telepathy (Druckman and Swet[1]). I understand that some believers in telepathy dispute the report, but in my understanding they are not mainstream scientists.

I think it's important to note that the statement about scientists does not presume to say that the scientists are correct, or that believers in telepathy are wrong. Rather, I think it's a description that fits with Wikipedia's goal of providing neutral, verifiable information. Wmahan. 05:31, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Post page-protection discussion

It seems like the current edit conflicts are over fairly small differences. Selmo, you appear to object to the statement reproducibility is one of the principles of scientific method. Is that correct? Would you accept that statement if it were cited? KarlBunker 10:19, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually Karl, it is well-cited with a link to reproducibility which states: "Reproducibility is one of the main principles of the scientific method, and refers to the ability of a test or experiment to be accurately reproduced, or replicated."

It appears the reason that Selmo does not accept this factual statement is that he may not accept the scientific method. But that's a POV that has no place in this or any other article. The fact is that reproducibility IS one of the main principles of the scientific method. (And it's this main principle that pro-paranormal researchers can't seem to satisfy, although they've been working at it for more than a century. No field of any real science has ever been so totally barren for so very long. One hundred and twenty plus years of "research" yet NOT one replicable experiment? What better evidence is there that for many, their need to believe is much stronger than their need to know.)

Selmo, please do not remove well-sourced facts and opinions because they clash with your POV. Such conduct is never successful. It leads to edit wars and protected pages and nothing ever productive. Askolnick 12:08, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I removed the sentance about preproducibility being a key element in the scientrific process because everyone knows this. If they don't, they can click the link. Also, I don't need my intelligence insulted by making the sracastic remark "Would you accept that statement if it were cited?" -- Selmo<sup>(talk)</sup> 14:51, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I meant no insult and I was not being sarcastic, Selmo. Usually when an editor removes something from an article it's because they disagree with the statement they're removing, or they think it is insufficiently supported. I honestly don't understand why you would repeatedly remove something "because everyone knows this." Even if one agrees that the statement is something that "everyone knows," it's hard to see how its inclusion harms the article.

Obviously several editors disagree with you on whether that statement is too obvious to warrant inclusion, so will you now accept its inclusion? KarlBunker 15:16, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Please don't try to insult our intelligence, Selmo. Obviously, not everybody knows that reproducibility is one of the main principles of the scientific method. I wish that this were true, but so many believers in supernatural and pseudoscientific claims are ignorant of this important fact. And even if everybody knew, that's no reason to remove it, because it's the critical reason why the vast majority of scientists remain skeptical about the existance of telepathy and other woo-woo claims. Excuse me if I'm wrong about this, but you removed it to shift the article towards your own POV. That's unacceptable.

Also, Selmo, try not to look for insults where none exist. Karl was not being sarcastic when he asked you if you were objecting because the statement lacked a citation. You can't blame him for trying to understand why you, without giving any explanation, removed a truthful and relevant statement concerning the failure of more than a century of telepathy research to satisfy one of the most important requirements of modern science. Askolnick 19:16, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Askolnick, the statements KarlBunker inserted contained at least one patently absurd statement and at least one opinion. I removed or altered those edits just as Selmo did.

I don't believe that Selmo (or anyone else) disagrees with a "relevant and truthful statement" but only with one that contravenes logic and promotes opinion. KarlBunker also inserts words like "fringe science". I don't have a problem with the reproducibility as a foundation of science statement--that's pretty much what scientific evidence is--but you can't truthfully make the statement that ALL telepathy experiements have been investigated and found faulty because they haven't all been investigated and all of them may not be known at present. Also, look at some of the other paranormal articles--they don't contain the basic premises of scientific investigation.

KarlBunkers actions are part of a campaign to insert his own POV into the article rather than allowing it to be neutral and non-POV. In addition, his statements and actions have predisposed others to interpret his comments on his edits as hostile, sarcastic, condescending, and/or rude.

Personally, I doubt there is any scientific basis to telepathy, but at one time the idea of the planet being spherical instead of flat was doubtful and led to people being put to death for heresy. That belief lasted a lot longer than the belief that telepathy does not exist has.

This would indicate the need to remain neutral and objective--as much a hallmark of science as is reproduceability. -THB 19:53, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

THB, I fear your knowledge of the history of science is seriously flawed. It was NOT heresy to believe or teach that the earth was spherical - that was known by the Ancient Greeks as well as by virtually every sailor who traveled the seas. What was considered heresy was to teach that the earth was NOT sitting stationary at the center of the universe. No one was ever put to death for claiming the earth was not flat.

And no, remaining neutral and objective is NOT the "hallmark of science." That's not even close to being true. It is extremely common for scientists to be either in favor or opposed to the hypothesis they're testing. Do you really think that Jonas Salk and the other March of Dimes researchers did NOT want the historical polio vaccine field trials to show that the vaccine was safe, effective, and potent? Do you really think that Watson and Crick did NOT want their double helix model for the structure of DNA to be true? Do you really think that Michaelson and Morley did NOT want their experiments to prove the existance of ether? They certainly did - and they (and other scientists) were shocked to find the opposite. Their strong bias did nothing to stop them from making one of the most important discoveries in physics at the end of the 19th century. The belief that scientists must be neutral is a common misconception among those who don't study science. Askolnick 01:46, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Here's a statment from this page regarding KarlBunker's opinion on placing statments in articles if they are "obvious" to him:

The notion of telepathy as being analogous to radio transmission isn't mentioned in the article because it's too obvious to warrant mention. With some latitude, it is the only way of (semi-)realistically viewing telepathy. Even it a work of fiction protrays telepathy as magic, the operation of it is still analogous to radio transmission. KarlBunker 15:37, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

-THB 20:30, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

THB, Do you have any comments about the current content of the article? KarlBunker 22:31, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

KarlBunker, Do you have any comments that are not sarcastic? -THB 23:44, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

THB, Karl's question was hardly sarcastic. It was quite to the point. You wrote at length criticizing Karl, but you didn't say anything about the current content of the article. Do you have anything to say about the current content of the article? I'm not being sarcastic. I would like to know, if we are to make any progress and get the article unlocked. Askolnick 01:46, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

My point is that the rules of the scientific method are much more "too obvious to warrant mention" than "the notion of telepathy as being analogous to radio transmission" is. KarlBunker should choose a standard of "includability" and stick with it, even if it isn't convenient. -THB 23:50, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

THB, "the rules of the scientific method" are certainly NOT "too obvious to warrant mention." Indeed, probably fewer than 1 in 100 Woo-woos know what the scientific method involves. You're continuing to criticize Karl. Do you have anything to say about the current content of the article? Again, I'm NOT being sarcastic. Can we get back to working on the article? Askolnick 01:46, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Askolnick, if, as KarlBunker stated, "the notion of telepathy as being analogous to radio transmission" is "too obvious to mention", then a basic explanation of the scientific method most certainly is and should not be included in the article, just as it is not included in other, similar articles on other paranormal topics. The opinions & unfounded statements you express are absolutely in alignment with those KarlBunker has expressed so I do not understand why you are trying to act as some sort of mediator.

Specifically, these sorts of comments are not helpful:

• the rules of the scientific method" and certainly NOT "too obvious to warrant mention." I
• Indeed, probably fewer than 1 in 100 Woo-woos know what the scientific method involves.
• And no, remaining neutral and objective is NOT the "hallmark of science." That's not even close to ::being true.
• The belief that scientists must be neutral is a common misconception among those who don't study science.

I would also suggest that you do not make assumptions about the education of your fellow Wikipedians and that you review the steps of the scientific method and the need for neutrality and objectivity when evaluating experiments. -THB 02:10, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

THB, comparing apples and oranges will not help us get the shopping done. There is no relationship between Karl's analogy and my point that is the very basis for why most scientists reject the claim that telepathy exists. And please do not go off on wild assumptions. I am no mediator. I have made no such claims. I have a very definite point of view in this debate.

You're confusing the issue further. My edit did not provide "a basic explanation of the scientific method." My edit simply pointed out that telepathy research has failed to produce any reliably reproducible results, which is the hallmark of a valid scientific discovery. To cite one of the main principles of the scientific method is not "providing a basic explanation" of this very complex subject. It is simply explaining the reason most scientists reject the "evidence" for existance of telepathy.

I believe my comments above are quite helpful. You may not like them, but they correct several false notions that were presented. May I ask again, do you have anything to say about the current content of the article? Can we get back to working on the article? Askolnick 12:51, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

THB, there is no connection between my past comments to another editor on another subject and the current discussion. But regardless of whether you agree with that, let's try to discuss one thing at a time. You appear to be saying that there is something wrong with including a brief mention of replicability as an important part of scientific method in this article. Is that what you're saying? If so, can you explain to me in what way you think that brief mention harms the article? KarlBunker 02:31, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

A "brief mention of replicability" is not what you have been trying to force. Please don't obfuscate the problem. My comments mean what they say. -THB 02:36, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

To you, obviously. But they appear to mean something else to others. This kind of arrogant answer is not at all helpful. If you think someone's argument "obfuscates" your comments, then why not explain how. Askolnick 12:51, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Ignoring whatever you think I've been trying to force, and ignoring all other past history, and focusing solely on the current content of the article, do you have any comments on that content? I'm sorry if you think it's "sarcastic" of me to keep repeating that question, but I can't see where you've answered it yet. KarlBunker 02:40, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Nor do I. I really would like us to move on and tackle the task of working out an agreement on the article's content. Askolnick

I see the mention of the scientific process only being used as a tool to push POV. I don't disagree with the statment, but it's only function it's serving is persuading the reader to disbelieve in the existance in telepathy. -- Selmo <sup>(talk)</sup> 04:48, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I find this accusation extremely hypocritical. You accused me of not assuming good faith for questioning your reverting the key reason most scientists reject evidence for telepathy, yet here you are accusing me of putting in this truthful and extremely important fact for wrongful purposes.

Selmo, when it comes to being a good editor, it doesn't matter what reasons a person has for accurately and truthfully adding an important fact. That the edit is accurate, truthful, and important is reason enough.Askolnick 12:51, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, I think that's a constructive way of putting it. I think this section of Wikipedia policy is relevant: the task is to represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view; and, moreover, to explain how scientists have received pseudoscientific theories.

That's not to say that your concern isn't valid, but often when you feel that the facts are presented in an unbalanced way in an article, providing more facts representing other perspectives is preferable to removing facts. For instance, the article could mention that in 2005, a telephone poll found that 31% of Americans believe in telepathy with a margin of error of ±3%.[2] -- Wmahan. 05:55, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Gee, that's about the same percentage of Americans polled who think George Bush is doing a good job. I bet they're the same people. :-)

---

My view: this dispute appears to be over a stylistic decision rather than a disagreement over facts. I think everyone agrees that reproducibility is key to the scientific method, as those articles make clear. As I understand it, the only question is whether the scientific method comment belongs in the article, and to be honest I don't think it should be such a big deal to either side.

I don't mean to belittle anyone by saying the issue is no big deal. But if the comment about the scientific method is not included, the reader is still free to follow the links that provide more information about the scientific process, and the article still makes it clear that no positive result has proven reproducible. Likewise, if everyone agrees that it is true that reproducibility is central to the scientific method, there shouldn't be any great harm in including a true statement, even if some see it as obvious.

THB, I think you may have a good point about the analogy to radio transmissions. Would you be willing to explain those concerns as a separate issue? Wmahan. 02:56, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Wmahan, I'm afraid you don't understand what I wrote. I am not at all interested in KarlBunker's radio transmission/telepathy analogy or in investigating it or elaborating on it.

However, KarlBunker said that the analogy of telepathy and radio transmission is too obvious to mention. I merely used the same line of reasoning to conclude that reproduceability and the scientific method are certainly too obvious to mention, since they are much more obvious and well known than the analogy of telepathy and radiotransmission, being taught to every junior high school student.

I'm sure KarlBunker will agree since he's the one who laid out the rules of what should be included and what should not and that he will be willing to follow his own dictates. -THB 23:24, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying. In that case, I would suggest that whether or not KarlBunker is being consistent is not really relevant to the article. Even supposing you are right that he is using a double standard, I don't think that will convince me or another editor that an unrelated sentence should be removed from the article. Wmahan. 15:21, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Wmahan, then why not just provide only a bunch of links and save bandwidth? This would make Wikipedia more user-friendly for people without a broadband connection. The majority of people (Americans, at least) haven't a clue what constitutes valid science. To assume (falsely) that they do is just plain wrong. And assuming that readers would click on a link to learn about the scientific method when they've come here to learn about telepathy, is equally wrong. I can understand why people who have an emotional committment to belief in the paranormal would object to explaining to readers why the great majority of scientists reject the so-called evidence for telepathy and other paranormal phenomena. But I can't see why any editor would object to informing readers of this vital information. Askolnick 13:08, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

No one believes that the article should consist only of links or that it should be 500 pages long; of course there is a middle ground, and disagreements and compromises over exactly what should be included are inevitable. I'm not disagreeing with what you said, but what is "vital" to the article is a matter of opinion, not fact, and as such is open to debate. Wmahan. 15:37, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree entirely with that. Askolnick 15:44, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Wmahan, a mention of replicability and scientific method is important to the article. As Askolnick pointed out, this bypasses the issue of trying to make a claim about the view of the "scientific community", because it points out the place where telepathy research has failed to meet the standards of scientific method. This is presented only as what it is: a failure to meet the standards of scientific method. It isn't presented as proof that telepathy doesn't exist, or as a statement that no one should believe in telepathy. KarlBunker 11:41, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Karl, very well stated. I am amused at this effort to keep readers from seeing the big elephant in the room. The failure of psi researchers to produce a single replicable experiment in more than 120 years of trying is an elephant that will crush the credibility of anyone who tries to ignore it. Askolnick 13:08, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Please note that I wasn't arguing for or against your position. You have a good point that many readers are likely not well informed about the scientific process. However, I was trying to explain that taking a few words out would not be totally unreasonable. Adding a brief phrase to the article might enlighten readers who are ignorant of the scientific process, and it might not. As far as I know, no one is arguing that the scientific process shouldn't be mentioned at all in the intro. Frankly I don't think the issue is worth edit-warring over, because page protection prevents productive work from being done on the article. Wmahan. 15:21, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Experiment section

I have a problem with this section's neutrality. First of all the reader is persuaded to think that telepathy doesn't exist as early as the lead. Secondly, all experiments have their own "criticisms" section. It appears to be another editor's critique on all the mentioned experiments. The criticisms sections to each experiment contains lots of weasel words. There is only one POV presented throughout each experiment section: the skeptics. As I mentioned before, the only POV that Wikipedia articles should be written from is the netural one. If we're going to have a section about experiments, I don't see why we can't include successful cases. A simple Google search can provide these results. according to this journal entry, The Sense of Being Stared at and Other Aspects of the Extended Mind by Rupert Sheldrake provides positive scientific results of telepathy. ---- Selmo <sup>(talk)</sup> 05:48, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

The "problem" you have is that you're not being allowed to write the lead to persuade readers into thinking that there's accepted scientific evidence for belief in telepathy. But that is simply not true. The evidence that has been produced over the past 120+ years is simply not accepted by the great majority of scientists. None of it passes one of the most important hurdles of valid science - reliable reproducibility. That is a key fact about the scientific debate over the existance of paranormal phenomena. I well understand why believers want to either deny that fact or conceal it. Trying to do so is clearly not editing from a NPOV. Askolnick 13:24, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Sylvia Brown is a world-renowned physic. It's been a while since I've read her book, but I do remember that she has aided law enforcement agencies in the successful arrest and charge of felons. If a government agency praises a physic, it must exist. ---- Selmo <sup>(talk)</sup> 05:57, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Sylvia Browne is a world-renowned charlatan. For those who don't yet know how this "psychic" makes a great living for herself by fooling the gullible and dimwitted, take a look at this video from one of her appearances on the Montel Williams Show[3]. It takes a lot of nerve and the lack of any conscience to cover up a failed "psychic" reading by attempting to convince a nearly sobbing woman that her fireman boyfriend drowned in some unknown body of water rather than dying as a hero, crushed to dust by a collapsing World Trade Tower! Browne apparently didn't hear the woman say that nothing of her boyfriend's body was ever recovered from 911. As she often does, Browne offered her usual ambiguous lost-in-water explanation. This time it bit her in the butt bigtime. Watch how she struggles to convince the poor woman that her boyfriend is speaking to her right right then and there and that perhaps he had drowned in the water from his firehose!. (A... Sylvia, dear ... the firemen were not trying to put out the fire - there was little or no water that could reach the burning floors and their mission was to evacuate the towers and rescue trapped and injured persons. Browne's pathetic fire-hose rationalization completely contradicts what she first said - that nothing of the boyfriend could not be found because water often makes the recovery of bodies impossible. The reason that nothing could be found of her boyfriend is that he was crushed beyond identification by hundreds of millions of tons of steel and concrete that collapsed on him. "Psychics" like Browne are utterly shameless exploiters of people's misery and gullibility. They are NOT reliable sources of information for Wikipedia or any credible reference work. I believe anyone who would claim such charlatans are reliable sources of information has a problem distinguishing fact from fiction.Askolnick 17:34, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Selmo, if we are to take this comment seriously, please provide a credible source for your claim that a government agency has praised Sylvia Browne's psychic abilities for helping to successfully arrest felons. Otherwise, would you kindly retract it as not a truthful statement? And no, neither a book nor article where Browne makes such deceitful boasts constitutes credible sources.

Also, do you really believe that something has to exist if a government agency says so? If we buy this dubious argument, then there must be weapons of mass destruction in Iraq after all! Askolnick 13:24, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

It was on thhe back of one of her books. Knock it off with your rude tone of voice. -- Selmo<sup>(talk)</sup> 21:00, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry you don't like my tone of voice. Perhaps, I'm a little frustrated because I'm still waiting for either a credible reference to support your claim that a "government agency" says Sylvia Browne helped them "successfully arrest fellons." The back of what book? Who made this claim? What government agency was this? And what "fellons" were "successfully arrested"? Frankly, I think this claim is a crock. No government agency that I'm aware of ever claimed to have successfully arrested any "felons" based on Browne's "psychic" pronouncements. You claimed in no uncertain terms that ESP exists because a government agency has praised Sylvia Browne for helping to capture criminals. Please either retract this claim or back it up with credible information and citations. Askolnick 22:35, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

By the way, telling me to "Knock it off with your rude tone of voice," is rather rude itself. I've suggested that, if you want others to be more civil, you should lead by example. I still think that's a good idea. Askolnick 22:38, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

You've both done an admirable job of revealing your bias, article-wise, for the rest of us to see. CovenantD 23:13, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Aside from my bias against using anonymous self-published web sites and other disreputable sources and my bias against con artists, what if any bias are you talking about? CovD, if you're going to swipe, please make your swipes less ambiguous.Askolnick 03:05, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

None of the sources you provide meet the reliable sources criteria. CovenantD 06:07, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

How is it not reliable? This type of topic requires an open mind, and due to the controversial nature of this topic, it's best to provide examples of my sources not being reliable. How is a published book not reliable? -- Selmo <sup>(talk)</sup> 06:17, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

If your first response is a personal attack, I decline to continue this and will simply advise you to read the link I provided. CovenantD 06:22, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I did not intend to make a personal attack. In reflection to this, I reworded what I just said. -- Selmo <sup>(talk)</sup>

In that case, I would say that a journal entry doesn't meet any kind of peer-reviewed criteria, your second reference is to Amazon.com, hardly a source for referencing, and Sylvia's own webpage also doesn't meet any kind of peer-reviewed criteria. These principles are laid out in, you guessed it, Wikipedia:Reliable sources, specifically the section on Cite peer-reviewed scientific publications and check community consensus. CovenantD 07:10, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

...Still waiting for a response... CovenantD 23:13, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

"No amount of evidence is enough to convince a skeptic. And no amount of evidence is nessesary for those with faith". -Joao de Deus -- Selmo <sup>(talk)</sup> 20:06, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I'm going to take that to mean that you have no reasonable defense of the sources you indicate. Let us know if and when you find some that pass the criteria. CovenantD 21:41, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Selmo, this quote, "No amount of evidence is enough to convince a skeptic," further suggests you really don't understand how science and scientists work. Scientists are expected to remain skeptical until they see compelling evidence. And compelling evidence is NEVER based on the "amount of evidence." It is based on the QUALITY of evidence. While one well-designed and well-conducted experiment can convince most scientists, a million badly conducted experiments will convince almost none. And another point is in order: Wiki editors are NOT supposed to edit based on "faith." They are supposed to edit based on the best-sourced evidence they can find. Askolnick 22:13, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Since "compelling evidence is NEVER based on the "amount of evidence", then there is certainly no need to discuss reproducibility. -THB 23:14, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

THB, word games like this is not the least helpful. Either you still haven't a clue what reproducibility means in science or you're just being disruptive. I am asking you one more time, do you have anything to say about the current content of the article, or are you going to continue making meaningless arguments? Askolnick 03:02, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Askolnick, it is not helpful to be condescending, rude, nasty, etc.; it would help facilitate the process of moving the article along if you would be polite. It only decreases the quality of communication and the willingness of others to consider what you say.

That being; again, as I have said many times now, there is no need to mention reproducibility in the article. It has its own article, as do other basic science concepts. When someone looks up "Telepathy", they want to read about that subject, presented in a neutral fashion, not about the scientific method, nor anyone's POV on telepathy.

Both you and KarlBunker have clearly made your POV known; you have shown yourselves to be unable to be neutral when discussing the article or its proposed contents. Perhaps you could better contribute to other articles that are less controversial where you can be polite to your fellow Wikipedians and make neutral POV contributions or at least be civil in the discussions. -THB 04:31, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

THB, as I suggeted to Selmo a number of times, if you want people to be more polite in responding to your comments, perhaps you should lead by example. It is hypocritical to attack other editors, make pointless snipes like you do above, and then complain when they criticize you for doing so. Please read administrator Bishonen's reply to your recent attack on my talk page, and seriously take it to heart, for the good of the Wiki community as well as your own. You and Selmo are heading for trouble with these harassing and vindictive attacks. If they continue, you will only succeed in getting yourselves blocked.

As for your comment about the article itself, I understand why you don't want the scientific point of view discussed in this article. You essentially argue here that science should be kept in articles on science and only pseudoscience should be discussed in articles on pseudoscience. I couldn't disagree with you more. And I suspect you will have no success in getting the Wiki community to agree with you. Want to take your position to RfC and find out?

If you would like to avoid the embarrassment of an RfC, please read the WP:NPOV section on Undue weight:[4]

NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Askolnick 12:44, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Selmo, if you look at the results of Ganzfeld experiments in the article, you'll see "Many meta-analyses performed on multiple Ganzfeld experiments claim a hit rate of between 30% and 40%, which is significantly higher than the 25% expected by chance.". These are the best, most respected experimental results in the field of telepathy research, and they're reported plainly in the article. There are criticisms of those results, but they're fairly and neutrally presented; they are not presented as totally invalidating the positive results, only as raising some questions about those results. KarlBunker 11:33, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

It looks to me that: if there's even the slightest ting wrong with the experiment, it gets included as a criticism. We could cite this site as a source for some positive results of the existence of telepathy. They've got eight books about it. -- Selmo <sup>(talk)</sup> 13:55, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Selmo, do you really not understand why that site is NOT a reliable source? Did you not read Wiki guidelines WP:RS? Such self-published personal web sites are NOT reliable sources. Even if one doesn't know or accept these guidelines, surely one should have trouble accepting this web site as a credible source. Just look at how it begins with the claim that "90% of the population" believes that telepathy "only exist in Saturday B-Rated movies." Really? Numerous studies have shown that the majority of Americans believe ESP is a real phenomenon. Our job as editors is to keep such bogus information out of Wikipedia, not add it. Please explain why you claim this ANONYMOUS personal web site should be cited. Is it that you have not read Wiki guidelines explaining what sources are reputable, or is that you don't want to follow those guidelines? I would like to understand why you would argue that this anonymous personal web site should be a source for this article. Is it out of ignorance of the guidelines or disagreement with them? Askolnick 14:33, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Post page-protection discussion summary

It appears that User:Selmo and User:THB are arguing that because telepathy experiments fail the scientific method criterion of reproducibility, it is therefor POV to include a mention of the scientific method criterion of reproducibility. Would you two agree with that characterization of your argument? If not, how would you restate it? KarlBunker 10:49, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the point is that the telepathy experiments have passed the test of reproducibility. But you would not guess that from the opening paragraph where a cited article from a peer review scientific journal which says "We believe that the replication rates and effect sizes achieved by one particular experimental method, the ganzfeld procedure, are now sufficient to warrant bringing this body of data to the attention of the wider psychological community" (my emphasis), is simply ignored in favour of a negative comment from an non-scientific source - ie. the musings of Robert Carroll on his Skepdic website. The point being that the opening parargraph states explicitly that the experiments have failed certain scientific tests while the only scientific source cited actually says they have passed! Davkal 15:04, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Davkal, it's not relevant what you think. What is relevant is what respected authorities on science think. You may not appreciate this fact, but Robert Carroll is widely respected as a source of information on the debate between scientists and the proponents of paranormal beliefs. His opinion is therefore much more important than yours —- but more importantly, as an editor, your opinion has no place in this or any other Wiki article. Furthermore, your obscene mispelling of a skeptical source suggests that you haven't learned anything from your fourth and week-long block. You were warned by the blocking administrator that the next time you resort to this conduct, you will be blocked for a month. You really need to take her warning seriously. Askolnick 15:15, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

What is relevant is that we have a scientific peer-review paper arguing that telepathy experiments have now been reproduced sufficiently to pass that criterion (that is not my POV, that is a fact). The fact that Robert Todd Carroll is of the opinion that all experiments in telepathy have been discredited is of no consequence unless you can support that view with reference to another peer-review scientific paper. Todd's musings are not science.Davkal 20:30, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

No, Davkal, now that I know what paper you're talking about, it does NOT argue that ESP experiments have now been found to be reputable. Indeed, the paper and follow-ups further prove that this field still hasn't produced any replicable results. See further comments below. Askolnick 14:23, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

RfC

I agree that a peer reviewed paper is encyclopedic. I suggest citing it lower in the article per WP:NPOV. To put it in the introduction would suggest that mainstream science is becoming more accepting of telepathy research, which would not represent the overall shape of this debate. Durova 02:29, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

That would depend on what journal you're talking about. There are more than 40,000 peer-reviewed journals in the world and the bulk of them are not worth the paper they're printed on. It's very easy for irrelevant minorities to get their fringe claims into print. Not all peer-reviewed publications are entirely reputable. It would also depend on what is claimed in this so-far anonymous "peer-reviewed paper." Keep in mind, the question here is reproducibility. I'm sure there are devout believers who insist there are reproducible psi experiments. But that's meaningless. Whether something in science is reproducible is determined by the scientific community, not by a few believers who publish their opinions.

That's not just my opinion. Please see Peer review, especially JAMA's deputy editor Dr. Drummond Rennie's quote. Rennie is a leading authority on scientific peer review and he really nailed it when he wrote: "There seems to be no study too fragmented, no hypothesis too trivial, no literature too biased or too egotistical, no design too warped, no methodology too bungled, no presentation of results too inaccurate, too obscure, and too contradictory, no analysis too self-serving, no argument too circular, no conclusions too trifling or too unjustified, and no grammar and syntax too offensive for a paper to end up in print."

You know, now that I think about it, the same is unfortunately true about Wikipedia. Askolnick 03:32, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

The paper referred to appears to be the third reference in the article, by Bem and Honorton, from the 1994 Psychological Bulletin. Apparently Hyman criticized the methods and conclusions of the paper, and the authors in turn responded to the criticisms. Wmahan. 04:46, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. It's good to know what we're arguing about. That paper is published in a renowned journal and one of the two authors is very highly respected. Unfortunately, the article was not properly peer-reviewed. (Peer-reviewers are supposed to be blinded - few psychologists would want to turn down ANY paper authored by Bem.) But even more compelling, the authors never claimed to have produced a replicable result. What they published was their analysis of a bunch of small Ganzfield ESP studies. Such meta-analyses are generally never regarded as proof of any hypothesis. They're regarded more as hypotheses generators. The problem with meta-analyses is that researchers are pretty much able to show what they consciously or unconsciously want by selecting or excluding the studies they include in their analysis. That's why meta-analysis findings must be confirmed by more solid studies. What's more, a later meta-analysis was performed by Milton and Wiseman - and also published in the Psychological Bulletin 5 years later, which contradicted Bem and Honorton's findings. Clearly there's nothing replicable here.

I agree that Bem and Honorton's meta-analysis need to be discussed in the article, but obviously not in the lead since it was a result that failed to be replicated. It should be discussed along with contrary findings in the section below discussing the best scientific evidence. It is important to note that this now-less-than-impressive study is 12 years old and it has not led to any work confirming its findings. The history of modern science is full of such results, although they're only found in history of science books and articles.

Here are excellent discussions of Bem and Honorton's work as well as Milton and Wiseman's. The first has links to the B & H paper and later criticisms. [5][6]Askolnick 14:23, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

The "excellent discussions" are, I note, from none other than Skeptical Inquirer - a self published magazine from one strand of the fundamentalist-humanist organisation the "centre for Inquiry". Have you no reputable papers from reputable journals discussing the paper in question. SI can't really be considered a reputable scientific source. Davkal 15:24, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

(Davkal, please be a little less disruptive by properly indenting your comments so that the discussions are easier to read. Thank you.) Askolnick 15:53, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, the only compelling evidence for ESP that I've ever seen is my ability to predict what Davkal will do whenever an editor cites a source he disagrees with (see my "prediction" below). He attacks with ad hominem arguments without even attempting to discuss what the source says.

Davkal, please try to understand. There's an important difference here. Your comments are "self-published." Skeptical Inquirer is NOT self-published. SI is published by CSICOP. It has an editorial board. It has editors. It has contributing authors all over the world, including Nobel laureates and other distinguished men and women of science, education, medicine, philosphy, and other fields of inquiry. It has fact checkers and copy editors. You, on the other hand, have none of these. Excuse us if we do not put your opinion above those published in SI. Askolnick 15:53, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

1. I'll put my comments in any way I like. If you have difficulty reading them then learn to use a computer properly.

2. It is not my opinion that such-and-such a comment is made in such-and-such a journal. It is a fact. And it is not my opinion that SI is not a peer-review science journal. That is also a fact. Therefore it is of little consequence whether SI trumps my opinion so to speak, since the scientific literature trumps SI. If you have reputable scientific peer-review sources casting doubt on the veracity of Bem and Honerton's work then let them be cited here and now. If you have no such sources then concede the point.Davkal 17:45, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

First of all, Davkal, I've asked you now several times to please properly indent your replies. That's what responsible editors try to do.

Second, you can put your comments any way you like. But if your purpose is to reach a consensus with other editors, you should do so in a non-disruptive way that persuades by fact and reason rather than ad hominem arguments and other obfuscations.

Third, it IS your opinion that the Bem-Honorton study constitutes proof that ESP has satisfied the scientific requirement of reliable reproducibility. And that opinion is utterly false. It does no such thing. Bem has clearly stated this.

Fourth, I not only have "reputable scientific peer-review sources casting doubt on" Bem and Honorton's findings, I provided cited one of the more prominent sources - published in the very same journal that reported Bem and Honorton's study. Askolnick 18:09, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

1. If any of this related to anything I was arguing then perhaps it would be interesting but it disnae so it isnae.

2. I fail to see how the amount of indent has any bearing on the qulity of an argument. It certainly does not equate to an ad hominem argument as you appear to suggesting - I've already explained to you elsewhere what ad hominem arguments are and have no intention of doing so here. Davkal 18:17, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Second paragraph again

The edit warring was over the second paragraph in the article. Here are some versions from the history (emphasis mine):

KarlBunker's version[7]:

Although many scientific experiments seeking evidence of telepathy have been conducted over more than a century, no positive result has ever been reliably reproduceable - which is the hallmark of valid scientific findings.

Selmo's version:[8]

Although many scientific experiments seeking evidence of telepathy have been conducted over more than a century, no positive result that has been investigated has ever been reliably reproduceable.

Current version by CovenantD:

Although many scientific experiments seeking evidence of telepathy have been conducted over more than a century, no positive result that has been investigated has ever been reliably reproduceable - one of the principles of the scientific method.

My suggested compromise (feel free to propose something else if you don't like this):

Many scientific experiments seeking evidence of telepathy have been conducted over more than a century. No positive result has met the scientific method's standard of being reliably reproducible.

(As a matter of logic, I think it's redundant to say "that has been investigated". How would it be possible for an experiment to be shown reproducible, if it was never investigated?)

I don't think there has been any disagreement over the final sentence, "To date, all positive results that have been investigated were either shown to be due to flawed methodology, statistically erroneous conclusions, cheating by subjects or experimenters, or else they were not reliably replicable by independent researchers."

Could we try to reach a consensus on one version, so the article can be unprotected? If you must comment about another editor, or complain about personal attacks, please don't do it in this section. Wmahan. 05:25, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

The first sentence of the two you propose is acceptable. The second is unnecessary (redundant), especially with the inclusion of the third sentence. This would be acceptably NPOV:

Many scientific experiments seeking evidence of telepathy have been conducted over more than a century. All positive results that have been investigated have been shown to be due to flawed methodology, erroneous statistics, or cheating by subjects or experimenters; or else were not reliably replicable by independent researchers."

Of course, these sentences must have acceptable references. -THB 05:57, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. A sentence that adds or explains is never redundant. I will not agree to removing the essential information about what constitutes compelling scientific evidence - replicability. I can understand why proponents of paranormal beliefs and pseudoscience would like to hide this, but I don't understand why Wiki editors would. It's a key point to explain why telepathy is dismissed by a large majority of the scientific community. No experimental result is ever accepted in the scientific community unless it is reliably replicable. Paranormal research has NEVER yielded a relicable result. These claims therefore are dismissed as pseudoscientific by the majority of the scientific community. Some proponents of supernatural beliefs would like to remove the hurdle of replicability from consideration. A whole lot more nonsense can be believed by doing this. For example, we could now be teaching how Mars had water canals only a hundred years ago - since a respected scientist had reported seeing them through his powerful telescope. Unfortunately, his observation was not replicable. Indeed, it was absolutely wrong. (Nevertheless, the "expert" Bush appointed to help guide U.S. space efforts, "Dr." Dan Quayle, claimed that it is important to send men to Mars because it has canals and where there are canals there is water and where there is water there may be life." Need I say more?) Askolnick 15:31, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

All of the information you are disagreeing about is in the version I propose. Repeating it in the same paragraph is unnecessary and on that I will not yield. -THB 15:42, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you THB for showing us that what you're determined to do is to keep this vital point out of the article. Editors working on a compromise do not pound their keyboard and declare, "I will not yield" over a question of whether a sentence is redundant. A claimed redundancy is hardly justification to "go to the wall" when trying to reach a compromise with other editors. No, redundancy is not the issue here. The issue is whether or not we tell readers that despite more than a century of research, telepathy experiments have failed to produce any reliable replicable results, which is one of the most important principles of the scientific method. You are NOT trying to keep a "redundancy" out. You are trying to keep information out. You don't want to tell the reader that replicability is vital to scientific credibility. I want to. And that's worth going to the wall for.

(I see you're now copying Davkal's disruptive habit of not indenting to make his comments appear more important. Please indent your replies appropriately. Thank you.) Askolnick 16:16, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I do not believe that the tone of the above comments is appropriate and, in my opinion,this demonstrates Askolnik's unfitness to take part in this discussion.-THB 16:29, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

As I said in my edit summaries, I was attempting to find a compromise that included the scientific methodology emphasis that Karl was insisting be included with Selmo's concerns about POV phrasing. Including the phrase "that has been investigated" is important because it implicitly acknowledges that not every experiment may have been reviewed, without committing the article one way or the other. CovenantD 06:55, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

The phrase "that have been investigated" has no clear meaning. Investigated by whom? In what way? Does it mean an attempt at replicating the experiment, or just that some scientist read an article reporting on an experiment looking for flaws in the methodology? Does peer review of an article prior to publication qualify as "investigation"? Is there any such thing as a genuine scientific experiment that has not been "investigated" in some way? In addition to all of this, it's redundant, as Wmahan says. Including the phrase doesn't do any great damage to the article, but it's bad writing. KarlBunker 10:28, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

The phrase "that have been investigated" has a clear meaning in that it modifies "all experiments". Without the modifying phrase the sentence is false and patently absurd. -THB 16:07, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

THB, your argument might be a little more compelling if--well, if you made one. KarlBunker 16:22, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Karl, THB appears to think that by just claiming these weasel words have "a clear meaning" that should be enough to convince us that they have a clear meaning. He could have tried to tell us what this weasel phrase means, but no. He simply insists that the meaning is clear. Obviously, not to you and not to me, but that doesn't really matter to THB, since he is insisting that we're "unfit to take part in this discussion." Askolnick 16:51, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I do not believe that the tone of the above comment is appropriate and, in my opinion, this demonstrates KarlBunker's unfitness to take part in this discussion. -THB 16:30, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

THB, you are not only making personal attacks, you are spamming. Both are blockable offense. I am also posting this warning on your talk page so that the next time you do it, you may be blocked. Askolnick 16:42, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Your threats are totally counterproductive to the discussion. I will continue to respond to rude remarks by pointing out that they are rude and inappropriate. The tactic of getting people blocked merely because you disagree with them only hurts you in the long run. The same would apply to KarlBunker. -THB 17:26, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Karl "that have been investigated" is unnecessary and bad writing. It's a weasel phrase that actually tells us nothing. Scientific findings that have not been properly peer-reviewed are never taken seriously by the scientific community. The process of peer-review is a kind of investigation. Journal editors (or scientific conference planners) investigate a paper's findings by asking experts in the field to review its methods and findings. So how about changing to "No published positive result has ever been..." Askolnick 15:31, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Any sentence beginning with "No published positive result...." is simply false unless it is modified with "that has been investigated" or a similar phrase. -THB 16:43, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

How about we take the following quote straight from the sceintific peer-reviewed paper dealing with the topic at hand and say that:

"[some scientists now believe that] the replication rates and effect sizes achieved by one particular experimental method, the ganzfeld procedure, are now sufficient to warrant bringing this body of data to the attention of the wider psychological community."

If any serious criticisms of that paper have appeared in reputable peer-review journals then of course they should be added or used to amend the paragraph, but as it is all we have is the opinion of Robert Carroll (a philosophy lecturer as I understand it) cited in place of the scientific view of those scientists who have studied the phenomenon scientifically.Davkal 12:18, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

You comment is off-topic. We are trying to reach a consensus about those three sentences. Discussing disputed Ganzfield research should be done in a later section. And no, we don't only have the opinion of Robert Carroll (who is a widely respected and quoted authority). We have many sources for these introductory sentences. I'm certain you'll attack any we cite.

I know that you keep trying to steer this article away from mentioning anything about the importance of replicability to scientific credibility, but that's not going to happen. This statement, "bringing this body of data to the attention of the wider psychological community," is NOT the same as "ESP research has finally met Science's gold standard requirement of replicability." "Bringing to the attention" of others does NOT mean "replicable." By that statment, the authors were claiming that their findings show Ganzfield experiments were worth more attention by the scientific community. They did NOT at all claim replicabilty of any paranormal findings. Indeed, Bem, the more respected of the two authors, went on the record saying that there has been no replicable results in paranormal research to date.[9] Askolnick 15:31, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Davkal, please indent your comments appropriately so that you do not make it hard for others to follow the thread of discussions. You keep doing this and it's a bit disruptive. Thanks. Askolnick 15:31, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I do not believe that the tone of the above comments is appropriate and, in my opinion,this demonstrates Askolnik's unfitness to take part in this discussion.-THB 15:42, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

What demonstrates an editor's unfitness for taking part in an editing discussion are his personal attacks on editors rather than on their arguments. THB, please stop bashing editors and stick to bashing arguments. If you can't think of a way to attack an argument, then it's time to concede the point, not to attack the editor you disagree with. Davkal's week-long block should have shown you how counterproductive personal attacks are. Askolnick 16:27, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I do not believe that the threatening tone of the above comment is appropriate and, in my opinion,this demonstrates Askolnik's unfitness to take part in this discussion.-THB 16:45, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think I'm off-topic at all. Of course the Ganzfeld data is disputed in the pages of SI and on Carroll's Skepdic website. But what actually matters here is whether it has been disputed in a reputable scientific journal where the reasons for dispute have to meet certain scientific requirements - ie. the contrary viewpoint cannot merely be asserted because it fits in with one's world-view. If the data has been criticised in a reputable peer reviewed source then let the sources be cited and let us amend the paragraph accordingly. As it is, we have a reputable scientifc source saying quite the opposite of what the pargraph in question currently suggests and it is not clear that we have any reputable scientific source for those sentiments. The point being that the opinions of a few professional doubters should not be allowed to take precedence over what is appearing in the scientific literature.Davkal 17:13, 20 September 2006 (UTC)L

Davkal, it would be much more productive if you actually read the comments you're responding to. Most of the time you appear to be talking to yourself instead of to Karl and me. Why do you keep replying to our comments without responding to the actual points? I won't bother answering your latest comment because it simply reiterates your previous statements as if they were never corrected. Askolnick 17:33, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I read your point, it made no sense, I rejected it. The paragraph in question is a characterisation of the current scientific state-of-play re telepathy. We have a peer-review journal saying one thing, and we have the current paragraph saying another quite different thing. What is the source for this contrary view if is is not simply SI and Carroll; and if it is simply SI and Carroll then it cannot be allowed to over-ride the current scientific thinking as shown by the peer-reviewed article. However much you might like it to be otherwise, Carroll's website and the pages of SI do not stand on the same footing as peer-reviewed scientific literature. Davkal 17:43, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

No, what we have is Davkal claiming that a peer-review journal says one thing and on the other hand we have what the journal's authors actually say. It's the same old clash between reality vs. pseudoreality, science, vs. pseudoscience. You keep misrepresenting what the authors said. They NEVER claimed to have produced any replicable scientific result. You keep pushing this $25 bill on us. I wish there were a Secret Service we could turn to whenever anyone tries to pass off counterfit facts. And once again, Davkal, please indent your replies appropriately. How difficult can this be? Every responsible editor tries to. Askolnick 17:58, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, please don't interfere with my comments. Secondly, the paper in question states that: "the replication rates and effect sizes achieved by one particular experimental method, the ganzfeld procedure, are now sufficient to warrant bringing this body of data to the attention of the wider psychological community." And my point, still not addressed, is why that cannot be considered as a suitable way to characterise the current scientific state-of-play re telepathy. It does not say "telepathy is real and exists" but it is a much fairer and better sourced description of the current state-of-play than the old CSICOP chestnut about "no studies have ever been..." which, despite being disingenuous, is trotted out on so many occassions.Davkal 18:05, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

In that "We believe..." sentence, the authors are stating their opionion that the evidence they're about to review is worth looking at. That's what "bring[...] to the attention of" means, isn't it? So one interpretation of that sentence is that they're only explaining why their article is worth reading. I'm not sure what "the current scientific state-of-play re telepathy" means, but that sentence is hardly a case of the scientific community making a ringing declaration of the success of ganzfeld experiments. KarlBunker 18:23, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

What ever the hell "current scientific state-of-play" means, it does not mean that we should add to the introduction of this article the fact that two reseachers published a paper 12 years ago in which they claimed their findings are good enough to be considered by other psychologists. It's a shame that Davkal misrepresented comments as claiming the existance of the first replicable results from ESP experiments. But now that it's clear what they actually said, Davkal is still insisting that these old, refuted findings be declared replicable - and added to the article's lead. Talk about beating a mumified horse. Bem and Honorton's findings can be discussed, along with more recent ones that refute them, in a section after the lead.Askolnick 18:38, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I hope you're not talking about the discredited article by Wiseman and Milton that, in part, lead "many of [Wiseman's] peers in the parapsychology research community to concluded that his behaviour was not consistent with commonly-accepted standards of scientific integrity, and he was voted off the main research forum in parapsychology by a large majority. In addition, for similar reasons, some members of the Society for Psychical Research called for him to be expelled from the Society. He resigned" http://www.skepticalinvestigations.org/whoswho/index.htm#RichardWiseman Davkal 19:35, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

You had better know what "the current scientific state-of-play re telepathy" means, because you're supposed to have been discussing exactly that point with a view to characterising it in the paragraph.Davkal 18:29, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, I guess I'm just not as hip as you and the three other people in the universe who have ever used that phrase KarlBunker 18:36, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Karl, what makes you think that there are two others? Keep in mind that this cryptical phrase is from the editor who repeatedly insisted that the defintion of "ad hominem" only applies to "irrelevant" personal attacks. I've been reporting on science now for over 25 years, for major science journals, newspapers, magazines, encyclopedias, etc., and I haven't a clue what "the current scientific state-of-play" means. I could probably figure out what "state-of-play" would mean if Davkal were discussing baseball. But I haven't a clue what it means here. Askolnick 18:44, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

If you put "current state of play" into a search engine (that's how KB knew about the 3 others Andy - he even provided a link), you will get 290,000 hits many of which use the words in the same sense that I was using them: that is, to mean the current situation - how things currently are. I am not surprised neither of you knew this. And, as noted ad nauseum, ad hominem arguments belong to a category of logical fallacies known as the fallacies of relevance. Davkal 18:53, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Davkal, please explain why you are "not surprised" that neither Karl nor I recognized an expression that appears in only three web pages in all the billions of web pages searchable by Google. What is "ad nauseum" were the many obfuscations as to why you cannot cite a dictonary definition of "ad hominem" that matches yours. Here are just five of the many dictionary entries that contradict your personal definition:

• Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, 10th ed.: 1. appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect; 2. marked by an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the conetentions made.
• American Heritage Dictionary 3rd ed.: appealing to personal considerations rather than logic or reason; Debaters should avoid ad hominem arguments that question their opponent's motives.
• Dictionary.com Unabridged, based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary: 1. appealing to one's prejudices, emotions, or special interests rather than to one's intellect or reason; 2. attacking an opponent's character rather than answering his argument.
• WordNet ® 2.0, © 2003 Princeton University: appealing to personal considerations (rather than to fact or reason)
• The Wordsmyth English Dictionary-Thesaurus: to the man (Latin) 1. appealing to a personal interest, emotion, or prejudice rather than to rationality; 2. attacking an opponent personally rather than attacking his or her argument.

I've been waiting - ad nauseum - for even one dictionary definition that agrees with your definition. I know of NO dictionary that supports your claim that personal attacks that not ad hominem if they are relevant personal attacks. I suspect my "ad nauseum" is only going to increase. Askolnick 20:04, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I've already provided numerous links to help you with your misunderstanding here - if you don't want to read them or aren't able to understand them then I can't help you any more. Perhaps you should consider why an ad hominem argument is called a "fallacy of relevance" if relevance has nothing to do with it. Davkal 20:56, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

So it's "how things currently (scientifically) are - re telepathy." Why do I still feel unenlightened? KarlBunker 19:21, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Davkal do you really think that this is an intelligent thing to say for someone who was JUST blocked for one week for making personal attacks? It might help you to remember what Forrest Gump said "stupid" is. Askolnick 20:04, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

(My comment now appears to refer to nothing, because Davkal deleted, rather than struck through, his personal attack on Karl: "Because you're stupid????? Davkal 19:29, 20 September 2006 (UTC)"

Askolnick 01:59, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I merely offered what appears to be the only obvious answer, I asserted nothing. And I really do think that if you both genuinely don't understand what such a straighforward sentence means then you should seriously consider whether you have the aptitude to edit an encyclopedia. Davkal 20:10, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Davkal, have you forgotten that your next block for making personal attacks will be for a month? Askolnick 20:17, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

In retrospect, it was wrong of me to suggest that a possible reason for KB's inability to understand the phrase might be because he was stupid. I apologise for any offence caused. Nonetheless, as I say below, I do think that since the phrase in question is such a common one, a genuine failure to understand it would raise serious questions about his understanding of English. This is pertinent in light of the fact that we are trying to edit an encyclopedia. If, on the other hand, the phrase is understood and KB is merely pretending not to know what it means then that raises serious questions about his behaviour on this page.Davkal 21:15, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

No, and the point is a straightforward one. You and KB keep claiming that you cannot understand a piece of plain English. If you genuinely cannot understand it then perhaps you should seriously consider whether you have the intellect/English skills to edit an encyclopedia. If you are simply claiming not to understand it when you know full what what the phrase means then perhaps you should consider stopping such disruptive conduct. Davkal 20:25, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Pretending not to understand plain English is only one of the trolling techniques they employ. I'm not sure if the repeated threats are trolling or just harassment or both. -21:15, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Trolling

Davkal, they're obviously trolling--you might as well not get sucked into it. -THB 19:14, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I know, so back to the issue at hand. Please use the space above to continue making ridiculous points about things that have nothing to do with the article. The section below can be used for discussing how best to characterise the current scientific state of play re telepathy. Davkal 19:28, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Second paragraph (current state-of-play re: telepathy)

here http://www.ft.com/cms/s/a299da3e-a0e3-11d9-95e5-00000e2511c8.html is an article that examines just the topic at hand. I think it would be good thing to portray the issue as it is here. That is, controversy, two-sides, puzzling results that won't really go away.Davkal 19:58, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

And here is an interesting quote from that article:

"For a neutral opinion, Radin says, you need only look at the findings of official scientific committees. Five US government panels assessed the findings of psychic research during the 1980s and 1990s. "All five decided that something was going on."Davkal 20:01, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Leave it to Davkal to quote a fiancial newspaper as his source for unnamed "neutral opinions" about the validity of psychic research. At least this is an improvement over citing a blub on the back of a book written by psychic charlatan Sylvia Browne as proof that government agencies recognize psychics. But yes, something is going on. Lots of deception and self-deception in the world of pseudoscience. Askolnick 20:14, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

And your point is?Davkal 20:20, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

For once I agree, there is plenty of deception going on in the field of pseudoscience. For example, the articles printed by CSICOP in it's magazine which, while masquerading as science, simply adopt the terminology and ape some of the methods of science but are clearly not examples of genuine science at all. Likewise the behaviour of CSICOP's fellows such as Wiseman who was given the boot from various scientific bodies for behaviour "not consistent with commonly-accepted standards of scientific integrity." Yes, one can find plenty deception going on alright!Davkal 21:55, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Obviously Askolnik's comments are uncivil and inflammatory but, more important, they expose his complete inability to express ideas in a neutral manner. He should be recused from contributing to this discussion and article, if not Wikipedia. -THB 20:27, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

RfC

Per WP:RS, this article suffers from undue weight placed on attempts to test the phenomenon scientifically. It ought to explore other areas such as fictional use and popular belief. Even the definition gets short shrift. Rather than summarize matters for nonexperts, this has degenerated into a debate between a couple of editors over a narrow part of the overall topic. Durova 22:16, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree, but the article is blocked at present and won't be unblocked (apparently) until we agree on this bit. I have put forward my suggestions but the only person to comment on them is askolnick and he has now left wiki. Davkal 23:54, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Agree completely -THB 22:01, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not so sure. The definition gets short shrift because the concept is extremely simple. Any longer definition would probably have to get into speculation and fictional representations of telepathy (as the Telepathy in Fiction section already does). As for increasing the coverage of fictional treatments of telepathy, a little bit of the history of telepathy in fiction would be good, but any more than a tightly-controled little in a section like that quickly becomes invitation for every passing reader to add in his $.02 worth about some Commodore 64 game he once saw that included telepathic ferrets as part of its back story. Also, I'm curious as to what part of Wikipedia:Reliable sources applies to your argument.

Well, there could be the type of telepathy that amounts to unspoken communication between people - either vague hunches or full conversations. In fantasy/science fiction there might be a "telesend" who could only project thoughts but not receive them, and other permutations. Then there's the type that regards card guessing. Whether or not these varieties have real world implications, there's certainly a body of fictional literature to that effect. Basically the undue weight clause of WP:RS states that the amount of space an article devotes to a subtopic should reflect that subtopic's importance in real world debate. While it's good to have some material about scientific testing, this article would benefit from other angles. The note below about when the term originated is a good example. Are there statistics about how many people believe in it? What are some notable or landmark uses in literature? Durova 03:46, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Archive

Now that Askolnick has bowed out, the old talk can be archived and we can move forward with this article. -THB 22:03, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Here, for example, is something I think should be in the intro. "The term was coined in 1882 by the French psychical researcher Fredric W. H. Myers, a founder of the Society for Psychical Research (SPR)." I don't have a 100% reputable source for this yet but will try to get one. I also think it might be useful to summarise how old the belief in telepathy is, and if it is a cross-cultural belief etc. in the intial summary (encyclopedia and all that) if I can find a source that deals with it.Davkal 22:10, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I found this on Robert Carroll's Skepdic website and elsewhere: according to a survey of 1100 college professors in the US, 55% of professors in the natural sciences believe "telepathy is either an established fact or highly likely". Perhaps we should include that as well.Davkal 22:37, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I suggest the following could become the intro:

Telepathy (from the Greek τηλε, tele, "distant"; and πάθεια, patheia, "feeling") is the communication of information from one mind to another by means other than the known perceptual senses.[1] The word itself was coined in 1882 by the classical scholar Fredric W. H. Myers, a founder of the Society for Psychical Research (SPR) (lots of sources now). Considered a form of extra-sensory perception or anomalous cognition, telepathy is often associated with other paranormal phenomena, such as precognition, clairvoyance, and telekinesis.

Belief in the reality of telepathy is fairly widespread. Surveys over the past 30 years have shown that around 40% of people in the US believe in its existence, with 30% being undecided and the remaining 30% believing it does not occur (source CSICOP and others). Interestingly, the figures for the general public do not differ much from the results of a 1979 survey of 1100 college professors in the US in which 55% of professors in the natural sciences believed telepathy was either "an established fact or highly likely."(source Skepdic, The Observer UK)

We can then have the summary paragraph about the scientific testing of telepathy - once we have agreed on the wording and conclusion. Davkal 16:52, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Let's get to a consensus so the article can be unlocked. -THB 17:02, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I have tried to write an account of the current scientific state of play which I think deals with the varying viewpoints more neutrally than was the case.

"Many scientific experiments seeking evidence of telepathy have been conducted over more than a century. While many of those have yielded positive results, most notably using the Ganzfeld procedure, a reliably reproduceable experimental technique has yet to be found (Financial times and others). This lack of reproducibility, as well as some flaws in experimental design and, on occasion, fraud, has led skeptics to argue that there is no credible scientific evidence for the existence of telepathy at all. Some parapsychologists, on the other hand, argue that the sheer amount of positive results from reputable studies, particularly using meta-analysis, provides evidence for telepathy that is hard to account for using conventional means. (Honerton article tec.)

Davkal 17:27, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Davkal, that's looking good. Head off trouble by having acceptable references. -THB 17:29, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

There are reputable sources for all the claims made so far. I have made a brief comments in the para above about them.Davkal 17:42, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

• I am sorry about the revert, I thought that Davkal has been editing another user's comment. I should have been more careful ... - Mike Rosoft 17:47, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3