This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | → | Archive 10 |
Parapsychology is NOT a science. Please see discussion here Talk:Psychic for my argument. Please don't imply parapsychology is a "field of science" or that any specific studies are "scientific" without consensus. Simply posting a link from a parapsychology website that they believe it's a science doesn't make it so. See WP:FRINGE and WP:RS for further information. Wikidudeman (talk) 06:58, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
What are you talking about "per psychic talk page"? I established beyond a reasonable doubt that parapsychology is NOT a field of scientific study on that page. Let's look at parapsychology and see if it fits the definition of "science". Does it (Parapsychology) follow the "scientific method"? No. Give me an example of an experimental peer-reviewed scientific studies that show positive evidence "psychics" exist, studies from credible non-fringe scientific journals who's experiments have been successfully reproduced by other peer reviewed credible non-fringe scientists and posted in the criteria above. (Any studies that don't meet this criteria fall under WP:FRINGE, studies posted in fringe journals such as Journal of Scientific Exploration) I'll examine that study and explain how it did not follow the Scientific method and had methodological flaws. Thus establishing studies that show "psychics" for example are real don't follow the scientific method negating the assertion such studies are even science. If a scientific study follows the scientific method then it won't have methodological flaws. To be clear, If parapsychology is defined as the "Scientific study of the paranormal" and "Scientific" implies following the scientific method then by that definition the vast majority of the studies done by so called parapsychologists are not scientific studies. The studies that are done that attempt to find a scientific explanation for the paranormal generally come up with non-paranormal explanations and actually debunk the assertions of most purported 'parapsychologists'. The studies that have positive results always have methodological flaws and thus aren't scientific. Now what is parapsychology? Is parapsychology the attempt to come to conclusions that agree that "supernatural" phenomenon exist or is it the attempt to study purported supernatural phenomenon and come to a conclusion whether it agrees with their precognitions or not? If it's the former then it isn't a science. If it's the latter then 99% of the studies done by so called parapsychologists aren't scientific studies and the 1% of studies done actually disagree with the concept of "supernatural phenomenon" to begin with. Unless of course you want to admit that the people who refute instances of "supernatural phenomenon" are actually parapsychologists themselves. Making such people as James Randi or Ray Hyman parapsychologists. Which of course brings us to the conclusion that if 'parapsychology' does exist as a scientific study then there can't be a "scientific field of parapsychology" because there have been no positive results brought forth to justify it being such. It would be like calling Lamarckism a 'field of science' even though all of the studies done refute it's theories. Also, Britannica doesn't even claim parapsychology is a "field of science" or even "scientific study". See the entry for encyclopedia britannica [ [1]] which also BTW mentions it as a "pseudo science" [ [2]]. Hardly any credible encyclopedias do. Moreover, What justifies Parapsychologies existence as a field of science? Nothing. Why can't the super small fraction of studies that are legitimately studying so called "psi" phenomenon be studies done in the field of psychology or neuropsychology or even cognitive science? Who cares? Just make up new fields of science for every little thing? No. Science isn't about adding un-needed words to it's lexicon. Especially words that have no relevant meaning. If "parapsychology" is justified as a field of science then it must have numerous accomplishments to show it's merit. If it doesn't then it isn't a field of science. The "study of psi phenomenon" is nothing more than a neuropsychological or psychological study. You can't just invent a whole new field of science based on a few flawed or unsuccessful studies. Does the fact that some purported parapsychological events occur outside of the mind (Telekinesis) justify a new term? No. Just because purported events of "psychic phenomenon" occur "outside of the mind" doesn't negate neuropsychologies capability to study them. Parapsychologists claim the origins of "ESP", Telekinesis are inside of the mind. Making them available for study by neurology or neuropsychology. I'm not disputing the fact that it CAN be studied following the scientific method. My dispute is whether or not you can call "parapsychology" a field of science because self purported "parapsychologists" don't follow the scientific method when they come to positive conclusions.(When they do follow the scientific method they come to negative conclusions showing no evidence for "psychics"). If there are any "scientific studies" out there done on so called "psi" for instance and those studies failed to show "psi" exists then those are nothing but failed studies. Not a "field of science". Are there any "Nobel prizes" of science in parapsychology? No. Why? Because Parapsychology has nothing to show for itself. It's a "non field of science". If you want to assert that parapsychology is a "field of science" then we need to point out the fact that it has published absolutely no positive studies from credible non-fringe scientific journals who's experiments have been successfully reproduced by other peer reviewed credible non-fringe scientists. We need to make it clear in the article that there is an absolute lack of scientific evidence published that meets the criteria I posted above. If we don't then the article would be in violation of WP:FRINGE. So we can either exclude making the absurd assertion that it's a "field of science" or we can simply explain that it's a "failed field of science" that has published nothing positive that supports the assertions of so many "parapsychologists". No of course i'm a busy man and If you want to mention it as a "failed field of science" at all then you need to find adequate sources for such. I won't be bothered with finding the sources to make that assertion to create NPOV just because you seem intent on claiming it's a 'field of science'. So if you want to claim it's a 'field of science' then we'll have to explain it's a failure as such which of course would require sources that you'll need to find. So in conclusion. No, Parapsychology is absolutely not a field of science. Can purported paranormal events be studied scientifically in theory? Maybe they can. Maybe they have. In such events studies that have been done which followed the scientific method and had no methodological flaws have shown negative evidence supporting the existence of these things. In cases where positive evidence came up, they always tend to have methodological flaws. Meaning you simply can't have a "field of science" based on failed scientific studies. Wikidudeman (talk) 09:20, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Parapsychology (aka Psychical Research) is indeed a field of science. This is WP:V according to Encarta Encyclopedia, which states:
The University of Edinburgh defines it as a science and offers advanced degrees that include the study of parapsychology, [3], so does the University of Northampton, and the University of Hertfordshire, among others. Harvard and Stanford both have conducted parapsychology research - which they consider science - and although it's not widely known, Harvard and Stanford have fellowships endowed explicitly for psychical research. It's part of psychology in a lot of schools, and is a science under that umbrella as well. Dreadlocke ☥ 03:47, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Post up those studies done by Harvard and Stanford.
Wikidudeman
(talk) 04:06, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Nealparr, Yes I read it all and you're missing a very important point. If parapsychology is defined as the "Scientific study of the paranormal" and "Scientific" implies following the scientific method then by that definition the vast majority of the studies done by so called parapsychologists are not scientific studies. The studies that are done that attempt to find a scientific explanation for the paranormal generally come up with non-paranormal explanations and actually debunk the assertions of most purported 'parapsychologists'. Now what is parapsychology? Is parapsychology the attempt to come to conclusions that agree that "supernatural" phenomenon exist or is it the attempt to study purported supernatural phenomenon and come to a conclusion whether it agrees with their precognitions or not? If it's the former then it isn't a science. If it's the latter then 99% of the studies done by so called parapsychologists aren't scientific studies and the 1% of studies done actually disagree with the concept of "supernatural phenomenon" to begin with. Leading us to the conclusion there's not even such a thing as "Parapsychology". Unless of course you want to admit that the people who refute instances of "supernatural phenomenon" are actually parapsychologists themselves. Making such people as James Randi or Ray Hyman parapsychologists. Which of course brings us to the conclusion that if 'parapsychology' does exist as a scientific study then there can't be a "scientific field of parapsychology" because there have been no positive results brought forth to justify it being such. It would be like calling Lamarckism a 'field of science' even though all of the studies done refute it's theories. Which of course means saying "The consensus in the scientific field of parapsychology" isn't justified either way. Wikidudeman (talk) 06:18, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Let me state it a little simpler...Why can't the super small fraction of studies that are legitimately studying so called "psi" phenomenon be studies done in the field of psychology or neuropsychology or even cognitive science? What justifies "parapsychology's" existence? Who's to say that all of the scientific studies that have been done to investigate instances of "psi" phenomenon aren't actually psychological or neuropsychological studies? Inventing a whole new "field of science" based on a few studies that try to investigate so called "paranormal phenomenon" makes no sense. It would be like me inventing a field of science called "para-astronomy" to study whether our moon was actually made by little blue men from Neptune. Wikidudeman (talk) 07:24, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Wikidudeman (talk) 09:41, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
I haven't yet read the above, and I'm in a hurry. But it is my basic position that it doesn't matter what anybody here thinks of parapsychology. For the purposes of Wikipedia, we can't do OR. There are opposing positions such as those of Hyman and Alcock, (usually not published in peer-reviewed journals). These opinions are based on arguments over "what is science." But the basic fact is that parapsychology has all the trappings of a science, and we are not in a position to argue with that. It doesn't matter what we think. Martinphi ( Talk Ψ Contribs) 20:34, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
It also does not matter whether it has results or not. A field of science need not produce results. What distinguishes a field of science from an experiment are things like the number of experiments over how many years, the peer-reviewed journals dedicated to it, the placement of its researchers, and the recognition it has received institutionally. This is usually to some extent a matter of personal judgment. We cannot afford that luxury here, so we have to go with the best external sources we can get. Thus, what matters most here is that peer-reviewed journals are WP:V, and that the AAAS recognizes parapsychology, and that parapsychology has been institutionalized as a scientific discipline for over a century. Parapsychology is more marginal than many other sciences, but it does qualify. Martinphi ( Talk Ψ Contribs) 22:41, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
The starting line should read "Parapsychology is the scientific study of certain types of paranormal phenomena, or of phenomena which appear to be paranormal." Martinphi ( Talk Ψ Contribs) 22:42, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Even some of the most extreme skeptics of parapsychology refer to it as a scientific field. Ray Hyman, for instance, has said "Parapsychology is the only field of scientific inquiry that does not have even one exemplar that can be assigned to students with the expectation that they will observe the original results!" Martinphi ( Talk Ψ Contribs) 23:41, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
AGF. There will of course be no need for a refutation. Your views on parapsychology are interesting, but they do not relate to the subject of what Wikipedia must accept as a science. Your views would probably repeat what other skeptics have already said, with the addition that in your opinion this makes parapsychology not a scientific field. Martinphi ( Talk Ψ Contribs) 21:01, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Wikidudeman, even if you have spent years doing hands-on parapsychological research and scholarship in the field, and thus have such authority in the matter, it doesn't give you the right to demean or be rude to others. Nor does it mean that your opinion necessarily has primacy on Wikipedia. Martinphi ( Talk Ψ Contribs) 23:27, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
These are just a few of the numerous problems with this article. The article needs massive amounts of attention and maintenance to even meet wikipedia standards. Wikidudeman (talk) 10:35, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
I liked the way the article was put a few days ago. I was only complaining about the 1st sentence implying it's a science. Once that was removed I was content with leaving it as is for a while. Wikidudeman (talk) 09:14, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
This is all about his views on parapsychology as a science. If he thought it were a science, there would be no problem. Martinphi ( Talk Ψ Contribs) 09:56, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
The article has POV issues overall, but the Is it Science section is borderline ridiculous. A couple sentences about those who don't consider it a science, followed by what seems to be a listing of everything that could be found insisting that it is, much of it from fringe publications insisting they aren't fringe. The Mousseau comments should be a sentence or two at most, considering she doesn't look like a reliable source beyond what parapsychologists say in their own defense. The paragraph needs to be balanced in terms of how science overall regards parapsychology. That view should be documented from the point of view of mainstream scientists and publications. If most references are from fringe publications, the article should reflect that and say that most consider it a fringe science. Which sources, if any are mainstream scientific publications calling it a science? I also think this article and Controversy in parapsychology seem like POV forks of each other - why is this section here, while critical arguments are moved off to a separate article?
Right now the section (and to a lesser extent the article overall) give the impression that there are few that dispute it is a science and most consider it one. Is that really the case, and can that be documented using mainstream scientific publications (science saying it's a science, not parapsychology calling itself a science)? -- Milo H Minderbinder 15:25, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Here's two cents from a newbie:
I think the problem with this section is how it structured. Headlining a section with the title "Is Parapsychology a Science?" is bound to attract attacks from pseudoskeptics time and time again. Our goal is to create a stable article that is objective and sticks to facts. Right now, what we have is the facts along with a lot of interpretation. As far as I am concerned, there is no question that parapsychology is practiced as a science. (It can, however, also be practiced as an art...in the sense of it being a theraputic/medicinal, hermeneutic or martial art). If we want to educate readers about the scientific and academic aspects of parapsychology, then we only need to stick to the facts, such as:
1. The Parapsychological Association has been a member of the American Academy for the Advancement of Science since 1969 (this should be enough for most people). 2. Parapsychology is practiced by mainstream scientists (this is case more than people think, there are no higher degrees for parapsychology, people study parapsychological topics from a variety of backgrounds). 3. Much parapsychological research takes place in university laboratories. 4. The results of parapsychological experiments are published in peer-reviewed journals (and perhaps list what they are and which mainstream journals have published articles on parapsychological topics).
If people read these facts and still want to insist that parapsychology is not scientific, let them. It's not our job to change the minds of dogmatic skeptics. As far as I am concerned we could do away with "Is Parapsychology a Science?" entirely and perhaps restructe it as 'Parapsychology and the Academy' or 'Parapsychology as an Academic Science'. I'm too new here to feel comfortable making such a major edit, but perhaps it's something that we could talk about?-- Annalisa Ventola 17:25, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Annalisa, the problem here is simply that parapsychology draws a lot more flack than psychology. Psychology doesn't challenge people's most basic beliefs about the universe and its laws, as does parapsychology. At least not to the same extent. There are two reasons people don't want to accept that parapsychology is a scientific field. The first one is that this status has been challenged, as it has with psychology. The second, and far more causal, reason is that people feel like parapsychology is the thin end of the wedge for bunk. I personally feel that the opposite is true: the track record of parapsychology is to debunk. However, saying this is actually a scientific field is terribly threatening to some. Martinphi ( Talk Ψ Contribs) 03:01, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Parapsychology doesn't challenge the basic laws of the universe. No more than Leprechauns challenge the basic laws of the universe. Wikidudeman (talk) 08:55, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
This list of further reading material is all over the place! Perhaps we could reduce this list to 10-12 introductory or classic texts that would give the interested lay/general reader an introduction to the field? Your thoughts?-- Annalisa Ventola 04:59, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Sounds fine to me Annalisa. I'm only attached to the two Radin ones and The Elusive Quarry: A Scientific Appraisal of Psychical Research by Hyman, and probably Parapsychology: A Concise History. It will be nice to have help with the article from someone who isn't ideological pro or con (: That is to say, if you are not a confirmed skeptic or pro-parapsychology, you may be very suited to do this. There aren't many of those around. Martinphi ( Talk Ψ Contribs) 05:30, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Since there's already an article about Controversy in Parapsychology that conains sourced info that's largely the flip side of the Is it Science section, I moved the section there so the contrasting views can be read together. I think having one side of an argument in a main article while the other is delegated to a sub article is a POV content fork and violates undue weight in the main article. In general, this article seems very redundant with sections on criticism, skepticism, status of the field (with its own controversy section). Some merging and streamlining would make the article much more workable. -- Milo H Minderbinder 17:46, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
There is another solution, which is to link it to the Controversy article. The section itself should contain the arguments from both sides, if you or someone can find peer-reviewed or
WP:V sources to flesh it out. Till then, let it stand; you can put your disputed tag down on that section if you want, but be patient, because the section is in the process of being written. Also, we are not responsible if the article is long, and has split-off sections. We are not responsible if the reader chooses to read only one page, say, the skeptical view page, and thus comes away with a POV impression. The front page does not have to be NPOV. Rather, it should present the most important information, giving a general overview; then the whole article needs to be NPOV.
Martinphi (
Talk Ψ
Contribs) 21:47, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree with you completely. That's one reason I kept only the status of the field section in the front page and split everything else. I usually put new sections in the front page for a while, where they will get most attention, then split them. Eventually, the front page will probably be only small summaries of the sub-articles. And, I never ever split a section off because I didn't like its POV. Martinphi ( Talk Ψ Contribs) 02:02, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
I appreciate the fact that some of you are taking the initiative to fix the neutrality and factual accuracy problem of this article. I can't continue point to point heated debate here on this talk page much more often because I have a lot of other things to work on. However I will come back every day and overview the article and see if it's still bias and contains factual errors. Then I will explain the problems with it as I spot them. The Tag that is up can stay up because there are still many problems with the article. However I will review it often and remove the tag once I am content it's neutral and factually accurate as an encyclopedia should be. One huge problem is the fact that "Experimental research", "Parapsychology as a scientific discipline", and "Status of the field" should be merged into one section and shortened considerably and relevant POV tone fixed and POV sentences removed. The other problem is the massive amount of quotes all being cherry picked to defend the assertion that it's a science. Work on those things and I'll review it in a day or two. Wikidudeman (talk) 09:07, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Obviously I've been making substantial changes. This is mostly for organization and readability. I haven't deleted anything substantial (I think) so far. Much of this information already exists in sub articles or is duplicated in this article. For style and readability, I'll probably be summarizing some of the content that's in there right now. If anyone wants to protect things they absolutely don't want reworded or summarized, please list it here. Thanks! -- Nealparr ( yell at me| for what i've done) 20:00, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Ok, you're right Nealparr (BTW, psi isn't neutral in the sense that it indicates psychic phenomena. It's neutral in the sense that it doesn't say what they are, or indicate a mechanism). Your right because the sentence also says "study of" indicating that there is positively something to be studied. So perhaps just change the word "feel" to "think." How 'bout that?
Wait a minute.... We're saying how the term is used. We're saying what parapsychologists mean by it. We aren't making a statement about it: In contemporary parapsychology, the term refers to the study of psi, indicating psychic phenomena. This says nothing about the existence. Just says what the term refers to when used by parapsychologists.
But, you know, I'm not that stuck on it. Whatever you think, at least for now. I just gave it as an example. Martinphi ( Talk Ψ Contribs) 23:30, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
The term 'psi' was originally proposed because parapsychologists were looking for a neutral term to use in order to discuss anomalous processes and causation. In other words, they were trying to get away from identifying the subject of their study by using culturally connotated words like 'psychic' or implying that anomalous phenomena are paranormal. Of course, over the last few decades, popular culture has appropriated the term and it has taken on a different meaning. Perhaps you would be interested in looking at this brief article for more explanation. In the meantime, I recommend that you use complete the sentence using something to the effect of, "anomalous processes and/or anomalous causation."-- Annalisa Ventola ( Talk | Contribs) 02:36, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Nealparr, I think you've done an excellent job of reorganizing things in a short amount of time. I wish I had more time to contribute myself, but I just worked a 10 hour day! I took the liberty of editing the brief discussion of psi in the intro. I hope that this is in line with what you and Martinphi were aiming to accomplish. -- Annalisa Ventola ( Talk | Contribs) 03:47, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
You're right Milo. A consensus of scientists in the scientific field of parapsychology. Only that. Wikipedia follows the scientific consensus in the field. We don't ask psychologists what the conditions are inside a neutron star. We really don't care what they have to say. And of course, we would present the viewpoints of the critics of parapsychology, and more so than with other articles on science. I have absolutely no desire not to accurately present what the critics have to say.
Even if I were pushing parapsychology, I still would not try to censor the critics, because that would only detract from my case- the reader would be able to tell it was a whitewash.
"For stability reasons, I don't think the article can take that approach. It would require constant maintenance and never-ending dispute resolvements." Nealparr, that is why I'm talking about an ArbCom decision. I want you to continue with what you are doing. It is great to get it stable for now with this definition of NPOV. In fact, I doubt there will be much that is materially different when we get it straightened out. I wrote everything I wrote from the perspective I would think the article would eventually have anyway. So you know exactly how I would think it should be presented. There are only a few tweaks I'd make different, like calling it a scientific field to begin with, and possibly saying directly which types of psi scientists in the field think are real. So keep doing what you're doing, OK? Martinphi ( Talk Ψ Contribs) 01:15, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
I'll post a link later. I don't want to say much in the article which is not already there. The difference would be that it is described as a scientific field. So there would be a slight change in the first sentence, "The scientific study of...". That, and possibly citing the consensus of parapsychologists. That is all. Martinphi ( Talk Ψ Contribs) 20:00, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | → | Archive 10 |
Parapsychology is NOT a science. Please see discussion here Talk:Psychic for my argument. Please don't imply parapsychology is a "field of science" or that any specific studies are "scientific" without consensus. Simply posting a link from a parapsychology website that they believe it's a science doesn't make it so. See WP:FRINGE and WP:RS for further information. Wikidudeman (talk) 06:58, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
What are you talking about "per psychic talk page"? I established beyond a reasonable doubt that parapsychology is NOT a field of scientific study on that page. Let's look at parapsychology and see if it fits the definition of "science". Does it (Parapsychology) follow the "scientific method"? No. Give me an example of an experimental peer-reviewed scientific studies that show positive evidence "psychics" exist, studies from credible non-fringe scientific journals who's experiments have been successfully reproduced by other peer reviewed credible non-fringe scientists and posted in the criteria above. (Any studies that don't meet this criteria fall under WP:FRINGE, studies posted in fringe journals such as Journal of Scientific Exploration) I'll examine that study and explain how it did not follow the Scientific method and had methodological flaws. Thus establishing studies that show "psychics" for example are real don't follow the scientific method negating the assertion such studies are even science. If a scientific study follows the scientific method then it won't have methodological flaws. To be clear, If parapsychology is defined as the "Scientific study of the paranormal" and "Scientific" implies following the scientific method then by that definition the vast majority of the studies done by so called parapsychologists are not scientific studies. The studies that are done that attempt to find a scientific explanation for the paranormal generally come up with non-paranormal explanations and actually debunk the assertions of most purported 'parapsychologists'. The studies that have positive results always have methodological flaws and thus aren't scientific. Now what is parapsychology? Is parapsychology the attempt to come to conclusions that agree that "supernatural" phenomenon exist or is it the attempt to study purported supernatural phenomenon and come to a conclusion whether it agrees with their precognitions or not? If it's the former then it isn't a science. If it's the latter then 99% of the studies done by so called parapsychologists aren't scientific studies and the 1% of studies done actually disagree with the concept of "supernatural phenomenon" to begin with. Unless of course you want to admit that the people who refute instances of "supernatural phenomenon" are actually parapsychologists themselves. Making such people as James Randi or Ray Hyman parapsychologists. Which of course brings us to the conclusion that if 'parapsychology' does exist as a scientific study then there can't be a "scientific field of parapsychology" because there have been no positive results brought forth to justify it being such. It would be like calling Lamarckism a 'field of science' even though all of the studies done refute it's theories. Also, Britannica doesn't even claim parapsychology is a "field of science" or even "scientific study". See the entry for encyclopedia britannica [ [1]] which also BTW mentions it as a "pseudo science" [ [2]]. Hardly any credible encyclopedias do. Moreover, What justifies Parapsychologies existence as a field of science? Nothing. Why can't the super small fraction of studies that are legitimately studying so called "psi" phenomenon be studies done in the field of psychology or neuropsychology or even cognitive science? Who cares? Just make up new fields of science for every little thing? No. Science isn't about adding un-needed words to it's lexicon. Especially words that have no relevant meaning. If "parapsychology" is justified as a field of science then it must have numerous accomplishments to show it's merit. If it doesn't then it isn't a field of science. The "study of psi phenomenon" is nothing more than a neuropsychological or psychological study. You can't just invent a whole new field of science based on a few flawed or unsuccessful studies. Does the fact that some purported parapsychological events occur outside of the mind (Telekinesis) justify a new term? No. Just because purported events of "psychic phenomenon" occur "outside of the mind" doesn't negate neuropsychologies capability to study them. Parapsychologists claim the origins of "ESP", Telekinesis are inside of the mind. Making them available for study by neurology or neuropsychology. I'm not disputing the fact that it CAN be studied following the scientific method. My dispute is whether or not you can call "parapsychology" a field of science because self purported "parapsychologists" don't follow the scientific method when they come to positive conclusions.(When they do follow the scientific method they come to negative conclusions showing no evidence for "psychics"). If there are any "scientific studies" out there done on so called "psi" for instance and those studies failed to show "psi" exists then those are nothing but failed studies. Not a "field of science". Are there any "Nobel prizes" of science in parapsychology? No. Why? Because Parapsychology has nothing to show for itself. It's a "non field of science". If you want to assert that parapsychology is a "field of science" then we need to point out the fact that it has published absolutely no positive studies from credible non-fringe scientific journals who's experiments have been successfully reproduced by other peer reviewed credible non-fringe scientists. We need to make it clear in the article that there is an absolute lack of scientific evidence published that meets the criteria I posted above. If we don't then the article would be in violation of WP:FRINGE. So we can either exclude making the absurd assertion that it's a "field of science" or we can simply explain that it's a "failed field of science" that has published nothing positive that supports the assertions of so many "parapsychologists". No of course i'm a busy man and If you want to mention it as a "failed field of science" at all then you need to find adequate sources for such. I won't be bothered with finding the sources to make that assertion to create NPOV just because you seem intent on claiming it's a 'field of science'. So if you want to claim it's a 'field of science' then we'll have to explain it's a failure as such which of course would require sources that you'll need to find. So in conclusion. No, Parapsychology is absolutely not a field of science. Can purported paranormal events be studied scientifically in theory? Maybe they can. Maybe they have. In such events studies that have been done which followed the scientific method and had no methodological flaws have shown negative evidence supporting the existence of these things. In cases where positive evidence came up, they always tend to have methodological flaws. Meaning you simply can't have a "field of science" based on failed scientific studies. Wikidudeman (talk) 09:20, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Parapsychology (aka Psychical Research) is indeed a field of science. This is WP:V according to Encarta Encyclopedia, which states:
The University of Edinburgh defines it as a science and offers advanced degrees that include the study of parapsychology, [3], so does the University of Northampton, and the University of Hertfordshire, among others. Harvard and Stanford both have conducted parapsychology research - which they consider science - and although it's not widely known, Harvard and Stanford have fellowships endowed explicitly for psychical research. It's part of psychology in a lot of schools, and is a science under that umbrella as well. Dreadlocke ☥ 03:47, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Post up those studies done by Harvard and Stanford.
Wikidudeman
(talk) 04:06, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Nealparr, Yes I read it all and you're missing a very important point. If parapsychology is defined as the "Scientific study of the paranormal" and "Scientific" implies following the scientific method then by that definition the vast majority of the studies done by so called parapsychologists are not scientific studies. The studies that are done that attempt to find a scientific explanation for the paranormal generally come up with non-paranormal explanations and actually debunk the assertions of most purported 'parapsychologists'. Now what is parapsychology? Is parapsychology the attempt to come to conclusions that agree that "supernatural" phenomenon exist or is it the attempt to study purported supernatural phenomenon and come to a conclusion whether it agrees with their precognitions or not? If it's the former then it isn't a science. If it's the latter then 99% of the studies done by so called parapsychologists aren't scientific studies and the 1% of studies done actually disagree with the concept of "supernatural phenomenon" to begin with. Leading us to the conclusion there's not even such a thing as "Parapsychology". Unless of course you want to admit that the people who refute instances of "supernatural phenomenon" are actually parapsychologists themselves. Making such people as James Randi or Ray Hyman parapsychologists. Which of course brings us to the conclusion that if 'parapsychology' does exist as a scientific study then there can't be a "scientific field of parapsychology" because there have been no positive results brought forth to justify it being such. It would be like calling Lamarckism a 'field of science' even though all of the studies done refute it's theories. Which of course means saying "The consensus in the scientific field of parapsychology" isn't justified either way. Wikidudeman (talk) 06:18, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Let me state it a little simpler...Why can't the super small fraction of studies that are legitimately studying so called "psi" phenomenon be studies done in the field of psychology or neuropsychology or even cognitive science? What justifies "parapsychology's" existence? Who's to say that all of the scientific studies that have been done to investigate instances of "psi" phenomenon aren't actually psychological or neuropsychological studies? Inventing a whole new "field of science" based on a few studies that try to investigate so called "paranormal phenomenon" makes no sense. It would be like me inventing a field of science called "para-astronomy" to study whether our moon was actually made by little blue men from Neptune. Wikidudeman (talk) 07:24, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Wikidudeman (talk) 09:41, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
I haven't yet read the above, and I'm in a hurry. But it is my basic position that it doesn't matter what anybody here thinks of parapsychology. For the purposes of Wikipedia, we can't do OR. There are opposing positions such as those of Hyman and Alcock, (usually not published in peer-reviewed journals). These opinions are based on arguments over "what is science." But the basic fact is that parapsychology has all the trappings of a science, and we are not in a position to argue with that. It doesn't matter what we think. Martinphi ( Talk Ψ Contribs) 20:34, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
It also does not matter whether it has results or not. A field of science need not produce results. What distinguishes a field of science from an experiment are things like the number of experiments over how many years, the peer-reviewed journals dedicated to it, the placement of its researchers, and the recognition it has received institutionally. This is usually to some extent a matter of personal judgment. We cannot afford that luxury here, so we have to go with the best external sources we can get. Thus, what matters most here is that peer-reviewed journals are WP:V, and that the AAAS recognizes parapsychology, and that parapsychology has been institutionalized as a scientific discipline for over a century. Parapsychology is more marginal than many other sciences, but it does qualify. Martinphi ( Talk Ψ Contribs) 22:41, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
The starting line should read "Parapsychology is the scientific study of certain types of paranormal phenomena, or of phenomena which appear to be paranormal." Martinphi ( Talk Ψ Contribs) 22:42, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Even some of the most extreme skeptics of parapsychology refer to it as a scientific field. Ray Hyman, for instance, has said "Parapsychology is the only field of scientific inquiry that does not have even one exemplar that can be assigned to students with the expectation that they will observe the original results!" Martinphi ( Talk Ψ Contribs) 23:41, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
AGF. There will of course be no need for a refutation. Your views on parapsychology are interesting, but they do not relate to the subject of what Wikipedia must accept as a science. Your views would probably repeat what other skeptics have already said, with the addition that in your opinion this makes parapsychology not a scientific field. Martinphi ( Talk Ψ Contribs) 21:01, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Wikidudeman, even if you have spent years doing hands-on parapsychological research and scholarship in the field, and thus have such authority in the matter, it doesn't give you the right to demean or be rude to others. Nor does it mean that your opinion necessarily has primacy on Wikipedia. Martinphi ( Talk Ψ Contribs) 23:27, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
These are just a few of the numerous problems with this article. The article needs massive amounts of attention and maintenance to even meet wikipedia standards. Wikidudeman (talk) 10:35, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
I liked the way the article was put a few days ago. I was only complaining about the 1st sentence implying it's a science. Once that was removed I was content with leaving it as is for a while. Wikidudeman (talk) 09:14, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
This is all about his views on parapsychology as a science. If he thought it were a science, there would be no problem. Martinphi ( Talk Ψ Contribs) 09:56, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
The article has POV issues overall, but the Is it Science section is borderline ridiculous. A couple sentences about those who don't consider it a science, followed by what seems to be a listing of everything that could be found insisting that it is, much of it from fringe publications insisting they aren't fringe. The Mousseau comments should be a sentence or two at most, considering she doesn't look like a reliable source beyond what parapsychologists say in their own defense. The paragraph needs to be balanced in terms of how science overall regards parapsychology. That view should be documented from the point of view of mainstream scientists and publications. If most references are from fringe publications, the article should reflect that and say that most consider it a fringe science. Which sources, if any are mainstream scientific publications calling it a science? I also think this article and Controversy in parapsychology seem like POV forks of each other - why is this section here, while critical arguments are moved off to a separate article?
Right now the section (and to a lesser extent the article overall) give the impression that there are few that dispute it is a science and most consider it one. Is that really the case, and can that be documented using mainstream scientific publications (science saying it's a science, not parapsychology calling itself a science)? -- Milo H Minderbinder 15:25, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Here's two cents from a newbie:
I think the problem with this section is how it structured. Headlining a section with the title "Is Parapsychology a Science?" is bound to attract attacks from pseudoskeptics time and time again. Our goal is to create a stable article that is objective and sticks to facts. Right now, what we have is the facts along with a lot of interpretation. As far as I am concerned, there is no question that parapsychology is practiced as a science. (It can, however, also be practiced as an art...in the sense of it being a theraputic/medicinal, hermeneutic or martial art). If we want to educate readers about the scientific and academic aspects of parapsychology, then we only need to stick to the facts, such as:
1. The Parapsychological Association has been a member of the American Academy for the Advancement of Science since 1969 (this should be enough for most people). 2. Parapsychology is practiced by mainstream scientists (this is case more than people think, there are no higher degrees for parapsychology, people study parapsychological topics from a variety of backgrounds). 3. Much parapsychological research takes place in university laboratories. 4. The results of parapsychological experiments are published in peer-reviewed journals (and perhaps list what they are and which mainstream journals have published articles on parapsychological topics).
If people read these facts and still want to insist that parapsychology is not scientific, let them. It's not our job to change the minds of dogmatic skeptics. As far as I am concerned we could do away with "Is Parapsychology a Science?" entirely and perhaps restructe it as 'Parapsychology and the Academy' or 'Parapsychology as an Academic Science'. I'm too new here to feel comfortable making such a major edit, but perhaps it's something that we could talk about?-- Annalisa Ventola 17:25, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Annalisa, the problem here is simply that parapsychology draws a lot more flack than psychology. Psychology doesn't challenge people's most basic beliefs about the universe and its laws, as does parapsychology. At least not to the same extent. There are two reasons people don't want to accept that parapsychology is a scientific field. The first one is that this status has been challenged, as it has with psychology. The second, and far more causal, reason is that people feel like parapsychology is the thin end of the wedge for bunk. I personally feel that the opposite is true: the track record of parapsychology is to debunk. However, saying this is actually a scientific field is terribly threatening to some. Martinphi ( Talk Ψ Contribs) 03:01, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Parapsychology doesn't challenge the basic laws of the universe. No more than Leprechauns challenge the basic laws of the universe. Wikidudeman (talk) 08:55, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
This list of further reading material is all over the place! Perhaps we could reduce this list to 10-12 introductory or classic texts that would give the interested lay/general reader an introduction to the field? Your thoughts?-- Annalisa Ventola 04:59, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Sounds fine to me Annalisa. I'm only attached to the two Radin ones and The Elusive Quarry: A Scientific Appraisal of Psychical Research by Hyman, and probably Parapsychology: A Concise History. It will be nice to have help with the article from someone who isn't ideological pro or con (: That is to say, if you are not a confirmed skeptic or pro-parapsychology, you may be very suited to do this. There aren't many of those around. Martinphi ( Talk Ψ Contribs) 05:30, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Since there's already an article about Controversy in Parapsychology that conains sourced info that's largely the flip side of the Is it Science section, I moved the section there so the contrasting views can be read together. I think having one side of an argument in a main article while the other is delegated to a sub article is a POV content fork and violates undue weight in the main article. In general, this article seems very redundant with sections on criticism, skepticism, status of the field (with its own controversy section). Some merging and streamlining would make the article much more workable. -- Milo H Minderbinder 17:46, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
There is another solution, which is to link it to the Controversy article. The section itself should contain the arguments from both sides, if you or someone can find peer-reviewed or
WP:V sources to flesh it out. Till then, let it stand; you can put your disputed tag down on that section if you want, but be patient, because the section is in the process of being written. Also, we are not responsible if the article is long, and has split-off sections. We are not responsible if the reader chooses to read only one page, say, the skeptical view page, and thus comes away with a POV impression. The front page does not have to be NPOV. Rather, it should present the most important information, giving a general overview; then the whole article needs to be NPOV.
Martinphi (
Talk Ψ
Contribs) 21:47, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree with you completely. That's one reason I kept only the status of the field section in the front page and split everything else. I usually put new sections in the front page for a while, where they will get most attention, then split them. Eventually, the front page will probably be only small summaries of the sub-articles. And, I never ever split a section off because I didn't like its POV. Martinphi ( Talk Ψ Contribs) 02:02, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
I appreciate the fact that some of you are taking the initiative to fix the neutrality and factual accuracy problem of this article. I can't continue point to point heated debate here on this talk page much more often because I have a lot of other things to work on. However I will come back every day and overview the article and see if it's still bias and contains factual errors. Then I will explain the problems with it as I spot them. The Tag that is up can stay up because there are still many problems with the article. However I will review it often and remove the tag once I am content it's neutral and factually accurate as an encyclopedia should be. One huge problem is the fact that "Experimental research", "Parapsychology as a scientific discipline", and "Status of the field" should be merged into one section and shortened considerably and relevant POV tone fixed and POV sentences removed. The other problem is the massive amount of quotes all being cherry picked to defend the assertion that it's a science. Work on those things and I'll review it in a day or two. Wikidudeman (talk) 09:07, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Obviously I've been making substantial changes. This is mostly for organization and readability. I haven't deleted anything substantial (I think) so far. Much of this information already exists in sub articles or is duplicated in this article. For style and readability, I'll probably be summarizing some of the content that's in there right now. If anyone wants to protect things they absolutely don't want reworded or summarized, please list it here. Thanks! -- Nealparr ( yell at me| for what i've done) 20:00, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Ok, you're right Nealparr (BTW, psi isn't neutral in the sense that it indicates psychic phenomena. It's neutral in the sense that it doesn't say what they are, or indicate a mechanism). Your right because the sentence also says "study of" indicating that there is positively something to be studied. So perhaps just change the word "feel" to "think." How 'bout that?
Wait a minute.... We're saying how the term is used. We're saying what parapsychologists mean by it. We aren't making a statement about it: In contemporary parapsychology, the term refers to the study of psi, indicating psychic phenomena. This says nothing about the existence. Just says what the term refers to when used by parapsychologists.
But, you know, I'm not that stuck on it. Whatever you think, at least for now. I just gave it as an example. Martinphi ( Talk Ψ Contribs) 23:30, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
The term 'psi' was originally proposed because parapsychologists were looking for a neutral term to use in order to discuss anomalous processes and causation. In other words, they were trying to get away from identifying the subject of their study by using culturally connotated words like 'psychic' or implying that anomalous phenomena are paranormal. Of course, over the last few decades, popular culture has appropriated the term and it has taken on a different meaning. Perhaps you would be interested in looking at this brief article for more explanation. In the meantime, I recommend that you use complete the sentence using something to the effect of, "anomalous processes and/or anomalous causation."-- Annalisa Ventola ( Talk | Contribs) 02:36, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Nealparr, I think you've done an excellent job of reorganizing things in a short amount of time. I wish I had more time to contribute myself, but I just worked a 10 hour day! I took the liberty of editing the brief discussion of psi in the intro. I hope that this is in line with what you and Martinphi were aiming to accomplish. -- Annalisa Ventola ( Talk | Contribs) 03:47, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
You're right Milo. A consensus of scientists in the scientific field of parapsychology. Only that. Wikipedia follows the scientific consensus in the field. We don't ask psychologists what the conditions are inside a neutron star. We really don't care what they have to say. And of course, we would present the viewpoints of the critics of parapsychology, and more so than with other articles on science. I have absolutely no desire not to accurately present what the critics have to say.
Even if I were pushing parapsychology, I still would not try to censor the critics, because that would only detract from my case- the reader would be able to tell it was a whitewash.
"For stability reasons, I don't think the article can take that approach. It would require constant maintenance and never-ending dispute resolvements." Nealparr, that is why I'm talking about an ArbCom decision. I want you to continue with what you are doing. It is great to get it stable for now with this definition of NPOV. In fact, I doubt there will be much that is materially different when we get it straightened out. I wrote everything I wrote from the perspective I would think the article would eventually have anyway. So you know exactly how I would think it should be presented. There are only a few tweaks I'd make different, like calling it a scientific field to begin with, and possibly saying directly which types of psi scientists in the field think are real. So keep doing what you're doing, OK? Martinphi ( Talk Ψ Contribs) 01:15, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
I'll post a link later. I don't want to say much in the article which is not already there. The difference would be that it is described as a scientific field. So there would be a slight change in the first sentence, "The scientific study of...". That, and possibly citing the consensus of parapsychologists. That is all. Martinphi ( Talk Ψ Contribs) 20:00, 28 February 2007 (UTC)