![]() | 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 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 |
Elonka, this article has undergone everything in the past, on the same issues, including an ArbCom. —— Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 02:39, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
qualifiers
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Psychic/Archive_4#Apparently_or_not_apparently
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Psychic/Archive3#.22Purported.22
RfC:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Psychic/Archive_4#RfC:_Which_defining_sentence_is_better.3F
Other:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Psychic/Archive2#Parapsychology_is_not_a_field_of_science.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Psychic/Archive2#Ridiculous
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Psychic/Archive2#Parapsychology_is_a_science
These may not be all, by a long way, and the focus on this page in particular. But as I said, you can't separate this from the same issues discussed for years on other articles, and taken to ArbCom. See the loci here [1]. —— Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 03:13, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
The article says psychic abilities have been proven not to exist. A more correct phrasing would be that they have not yet been proven to exist. If only one person in a million is psychic then studies might miss them. Failing to find such a person is not proof of nonexistance.
205.240.0.37 ( talk) 18:39, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Malcolm, you are destroying the meaning of the sentence, in which the word "field" becomes meaningless without the inclusion of its referent. It is also what the source says, so you are changing the meaning away from the sources provided. You are also on your third (or is it fourth) revert. Please stop edit warring. Bob ( QaBob) 16:54, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
OK.... I disagree that the findings of parapsychology should not be mentioned in the lead. If you think they should not be combined into a single sentence as they were, that is one thing. But the lead should not represent only one side of the argument from researchers, even if you don't believe that the field of parapsychology is scientific. Bob ( QaBob) 17:20, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
(e.c.)If we removed all "fringe sources", that would require removing most if not all of the "pro-psychic" material including any mention of parapsychology which, almost by definition, is "fringe" and therefore subject to the rules of WP:FRINGE. As it is, I am of the opinion that a lot of "fringe material" is in fact notable enough for inclusion in this article, perhaps even from a pop-culture perspective. If you admit this, I think you must admit that EQUALLY notable to this article are the "debunkers" who create sources/discourse at the same level of reliability (they aren't publishing in scientific journals showing us why Miss Cleo's hotline is not able to live up to the observable claims in her advertisements, but she isn't publishing in scientific journals either). Think MythBusters as an example of a perfectly reliable source that is at the same level as those who are claiming psychic phenomena exist. The psychic industry rakes in billions of dollars which makes their claims themselves notable enough for inclusion here. However, if Sylvia Browne is worth a mention here then so are her detractors since they are active at the same level of source reliability. ScienceApologist ( talk) 18:07, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Parapsychology is discussed in the article. But the sentence in the intro is unnecessary, and particularly that sentence, which gives the impression that parapsychology has a level of respectability that it certainly does not. Malcolm Schosha ( talk) 18:06, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Parapsychology is a field of scientific inquiry. That much is established, both outside Wikipedia and within. Ask James Randi. —— Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 23:52, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Fortunately, any one person's "view" of what the scientific community "is" is irrelevant. The sources indicate a disdain on the part of the community for claims of psychic phenomenon. That's it. However, the parity that is evinced in the wording that both you and Marinphi have inserted essentially places parapsychology as it currently exists as an endeavor which deserves careful consideration vis-a-vis this article. We see many people above weighing in that the details of parapsychological claims are almost so irrelevant to this situation as to make including even mention of parapsychology in the lead to be problematic. Instead of adhering to this consensus about the sources, Martinphi has inserted audacious attributions to the Parapsychological Association: something that seems to me to be if not in explicit violation of WP:FRINGE then, at the very least, completely disruptive to our editing process. And here you are telling me that I'm insisting that we treat parapsychology on par with other sciences? Lord no, I'm trying to get parapsychology properly described per Wikipedia policies as the parochial, quaint, and eye-rollingly outrageous opinions of pseudo-professionals who apparently think that confirmation bias doesn't apply to them when they're looking for evidence for the existence of ESP. Now, I'm not arguing that this is the wording we should use, but right now your camp has positioned something diametrically opposed to this description which means that you are promoting content which is diametrically opposed to the best sources we've got. ScienceApologist ( talk) 00:53, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Since no one is addressing my concerns about PA being in the lead, it should be moved out of the lead. -- Ronz ( talk) 18:26, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Elonka, you are right that the PA should be in the article if it's in the lead. I only put it in the lead because someone put a "who" tag (or something) on the sentence- it was originally just a source about the consensus of parapsychologists. There is a good place for mention down the page, and I'll try to deal with this later tonight. —— Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 00:45, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
(undent) Orange, Orange <sigh...> you just don't get it.
but that's ok, and I'm not all that interested in debating it with you in this particular place. arguing against someone's religious beliefs takes a certain kind of environment, and a level of patience and dedication that I'm not willing to invest here. but mark my words, that's what it is. Science is a doctrine to you, not a practice, and that is what lies at the root of all our difficulties. but we can pick that point up somewhere else. --
Ludwigs2
23:50, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
There is also a lot of plain incorrect information here "vast number of scientists who have studied and dismissed psychic as a real ability": such has not happened. "The PA is not a real science association, say on the level of the NSF or NAS" quite so, it's an association representing a sub-discipline. The AAAS includes the PA: that cements its position. I'm sure that secondary sources will say it's the association that represents parapsychologists. Basically, you can include the fact that people question the validity of parapsychological results, or you can include a statement that parapsychology is pseudoscience if you can find one (attributed). This will be balanced by statements such as that by Randi and Alcock that it is a science. But you can't say that parapsychology or its sources are to be excluded. You can think they are unscientific all you like, but you'll have to follow the sources on the matter. —— Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 23:57, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
So, we have the uncited line "Parapsychology involves research that does not fit within standard theoretical models." in the article. Are there any marginally credible scientific theoretical models put forward by parapsychologists? John Nevard ( talk) 09:22, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
1. Lack of sources for claims "and no compelling evidence of psychic phenomena has been found in more than 75 years of experiments being carried out."
2. Incorrect information "although their work is not published in peer reviewed journals."
3. Use of out dated report from CSICOP members "In 1988 the U.S. National Academy of Sciences gave a report on the subject."
4. The ludicrous claim that the PA is not a notable organization relative to the subject of psychics.
5. Moving the article away from general cultural themes to some bigtime debate between opposing camps over scientific validity.
We came to a consensus before not to do this. —— Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 22:05, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
(unindent) Here are 2 newspaper reports from 2006 [3] [4], where a spokesperson from the Royal Society gives the unequivocal view of the RS of a session of the British Association given over to paranormal researchers including Rupert Sheldrake, Perrot-Warwick scholar at Trinity College, Cambridge:"The Scientific and Medical Network, which is organising this session, lies far from the scientific mainstream and the list of speakers reflects this. Modern science is based on a rigorous evidence-based process involving experiment and observation. The results and interpretations should always be exposed to robust peer review." Trinity College also has the physics Nobel laureate Brian Josephson, who not only runs his own mind-body centre in the Cavendish laboratory (he is the only permanent member), but also espouses many fringe theories, including cold fusion and water memory. If wikipedians wish to question the existence of a scientific establishment, such as the Royal Society, the NSF and other university funding bodies, and their failure to support research into paranormal phenomena, then they are trying to create an alternative reality on wikipedia. It is an unfortunate but true fact that institutions like the National Academy of Sciences, the Royal Society, the CNRS, etc, etc, are the principal representatives of current mainstream scientific thought. To suggest otherwise is perverse: it would certainly run counter to everything that this encyclopedia supposedly represents. It seems to be futile to push a Never-never-land view of the scientific community which does not represent reality. Mathsci ( talk) 22:58, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Mathsci, did you read the debate between Sheldrake and Wolpert? I don't see how the rest of it is helping build an article. Surely you aren't still, after all these years, trying to prove parapsychology is a pseudoscience? Ok, it's a pseudoscience. Shall we agree on that? All Wikipeida editors think parapsychology is a pseudoscience. We don't treat it any differently in the article because of that, because our opinion is original research. Our opinions don't matter. This is all shooting the breeze, and I think we just need to move on. —— Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 04:03, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Apologies if some of these might be out of date- but they give a good overview of the debate, for pending mediation
Can someone point me to where this says that "psychics provide advice and counsel to millions of clients"? —— Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 04:27, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Anyone want to defend the incorrect assertion that "although their [parapsychologists] work is not published in peer reviewed journals."? I'll wait till tomorrow for a substantial source which states as much, before taking it out. —— Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 04:58, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
What did people have against this?
"Early examples of individuals thought by some to have psychic powers include the Oracle of Apollo at Delphi who was thought to provide prophecies from Apollo himself[2] as well as Nostradamus, a French apothecary who is thought by some to have had the ability to predict the future.[3] During the 19th century belief in psychics became more common and many notable individuals gained notoriety including Daniel Dunglas Home." —— Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 05:06, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Anyone want to provide us with some good negative evidence for "no evidence of psychic phenomena has been found in more than 75 years of experiments being carried out" ? —— Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 05:08, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
"In 1988 the U.S. National Academy of Sciences gave a report on the subject that concluded there is "no scientific justification from research conducted over a period of 130 years for the existence of parapsychological phenomena."
This is very old, before much of the ganzfeld or presentiment studies.
1. Is it sufficiently relevant 21 years later to include?
2. Is it relevant that two principle members of of the panel, Hyman and Alcock, were from CSICOP, and Hyman is an original fellow of the organization; that the NRC violated its own policy by not having any psychic researchers on the panel; that the chairman of the committee phoned one of the authors of a paper (done for the report) which was positive, asking him to withdraw his conclusions (later saying this was to avoid "mixed signals"). And that the committee could not offer plausible alternatives to the research they looked at, according to the report? (thus contradicting the public statement). —— Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 05:15, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Another potential problem:
I don't see the above quote anywhere in the report. It's possible I'm just missing it. Does anyone have a page number? I suspect that the quote is from a press conference. —— Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 19:54, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
The Psychic advice section [5] has remained unsourced. It should not have been inserted without sources, but assuming it can be sourced, could people please provide a short timeframe after which this will have been accomplished, or if not accomplished we can take the section out? —— Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 05:24, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
"The scientific community has not accepted this work"
Scientific community as used above is linked to Scientific consensus. However the Scientific consensus is
"the collective judgement, position, and opinion of the community of scientists in a particular field of science at a particular time" [6]
The scientific consensus is not the overall opinion of the scientific community. The scientific discipline which covers psychic affairs is Parapsychology. Thus, the scientific consensus in parapsychology is one thing, and the scientific community has not accepted it. Whether or not we, as editors, believe parapsychology is science does not matter. We have to follow the sources on it. I can provide sources, many of them skeptical, asserting parapsychology is a science. We have 10% of members of the The National Academy of Sciences who felt that parapsychological research should be encouraged- presumably they don't want to encourage pseudoscience. We also have to follow the guidance given in the Paranormal ArbCom [7].
We can, I'm sure, write around such terms, but if anyone wants to cite a scientific consensus, it belongs to parapsychology.
Any objections where the opinion of the editor is not a relevant factor? —— Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 06:01, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
The AAAS, certainly. And certainly many other sources and factors. The scientific consensus goes to the discipline or sub discipline. —— Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 20:49, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
The scientific community has rejected claims of psychic phenomena, [1]
ref is: <ref name="CaliBoard">{{cite book |last=|first=|title=Science Framework for California Public Schools|publisher=California State Board of Education|year=1990}}</ref>
This reference does not speak for the scientific community.
Further, it is in dispute other places. For months, I've been asking for a quote from it, to see if it says what it's being use to source... and the request has been ignored. Now it's being used to source the opinion of the entire scientific community! I would request that either a quotation be provided, or the source removed. —— Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 20:57, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
"and no compelling evidence of psychic phenomena has been found." is sourced to a single study which claims to present compelling negative evidence, but this is not something WP can claim. Further, science is a dialectic adversarial process, and there has not been time for peer-reviewed responses, so far as I know.
Furthermore, this article should be geared to the general reader. The general reader does not know the scientific definition of "compelling evidence," which is that the evidence absolutely compels you to believe it. Thus the statement, even if it were to be considered well sourced and true and uncontroversial, does not convey the message in an accurate manner. —— Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 02:42, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
"A study using neuroimaging published in 2008 provides the strongest evidence yet obtained that paranormal mental phenomena do not exist"
How is it that WP is accepting the author's claim for this one study, among hundreds, at face value? And since we only have access to the abstract, we don't even know what he's basing that on. A statement like that at least requires nuance. —— Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 21:04, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Copied from Orgone
Yes, kind of redundant. You want to tackle Psychic in the same way? OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 23:23, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Let's see what we can do over the weekend, and if we can't resolve it by Monday we can go ask for mediation, alright? —— Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 03:58, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
I don't think we should call any person a pseudoscientist -- although pseudoscience is not usually defined by whether its practitioners are acting in good faith. It's just not necessary to go ad hominem.
It seems to me that we can provide the reader with adequate information about the relation of science and psychic claims without making conclusory statements. If the evidence shows that decades of parapsychology research have yielded no established theory of psychic abilities, that tells the reader what they need to know, without us pronouncing judgment on the demarcation problem or calling anyone a "pseudoscientist". -- FOo ( talk) 18:24, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
That is the way Wikipedia works with this type of subject; a bog standard classical mechanics level of science, reason and logic to match, insult the subject and people working in the field. The scientific method can be applied irrespective of subject but, to self-styled sceptics and similar, if it is applied to certain subjects the science is pseudo-science irrespective of care, methodology, etc., with a similar attitude to practitioners. If it was a matter of something being searched for for decades with no proof arising form the efforts expended be classed as pseudo-science the search for the Higgs Boson would amount pseudo-science and the ten of thousands of scientists who have been engaged in that search would be pseudo-scientists but logic and consistency are not exactly strong suits among such people. Similarly with the falsifiability and repeatable experiments by numerous people, etc., arguments; straightforward at the school laboratory level but not always elsewhere, but still applicable, after all such matters as evolution and the existence of black holes have been proved by repeated experiment, have they not? RichardKingCEng ( talk) 22:29, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
OM- I'll try and summarize the problems with the lead, if you like. —— Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 07:12, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
"Psychic" matters are studied both with scientific rigor, and without it, as well as being the subject of beliefs that do not have scientific backing. Mainstream science tends to neither study, nor express interest in psychic matters. This is for various reasons based on professional culture, reputation, publication, falsifiability, conservatism, and past history of the field. A minor branch of science, known as "parapsychology", attempts to study psychic matters on a scientific basis, however the topic is generally treated as controversial and marginal by scientists outside its own field. Research outside the scientific world is usually not considered to meet the basis of formality needed to scientifically prove any given result, although some matters have been studied now and then, and skeptics ("debunkers") are often given credence in demonstrating the need for rigorous evidence-based testing. [9]
—— Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 01:52, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
This is a summary of problems in the lead, covered in more detail in the "Questions" sections above. As requested by OrangeMarlin
"refers to the claimed ability"
Qualifiers inserted again, despite consensus [10] and the Paranormal ArbCom.
"hidden from the normal senses"
Normal versus....... abnormal, giving a sense that psychic senses would be "abnormal" if they existed.
"through what is described as extra-sensory perception,"
The "described" part is another unnecessary qualifier, per above.
"A large industry exists where psychics provide advice and counsel to clients,[2] though debunkers attribute such putative powers to intentional trickery or self-delusion."
I don't know about the word "debunkers." I think sometimes they would embrace that word. We should not juxtapose criticism, especially not in the same sentence, joined by the WP:WTA "though"
"Some famous contemporary psychics include Miss Cleo, Sylvia Browne, and John Edward.[7][citations needed]"
This may have WP:BLP implications, as they are being criticized without sources per the previous sentence. In addition, the source [2] is for the psychic phone industry, and doesn't cover these kinds of psychics. And the sentence is unsourced, though that may not matter.
"The scientific community has rejected claims of psychic phenomena,"
This has the rather direct implication that parapsychologists are not part of the scientific community. It also implies that the opinions of non-experts are somehow relevant because they are "scientists," ignoring the fact that those scientists may be trained in entirely different fields. Also, it implies that the "scientific community" is a monolith, rather than sub-divided into disciplines which alone are qualified to speak on their various subjects- the latter being a deeply accepted verity. Also, the scientific community in general has not really rejected, it just has not accepted. The rejection is from major skeptics. The NAS report is not a rejection, it is saying it does not accept. Has not found evidence.
"and no compelling evidence of psychic phenomena has been found."
Hotly contested yet stated as an absolute, sourced to a single article (for which there hasn't been time for a peer reviewed response). Should be attributed, if used at all.
"A study using neuroimaging published in 2008 provides the strongest evidence yet obtained that paranormal mental phenomena do not exist."
As above, just a claim by a single article, but being accepted as gospel. This source has a abstract which provides good sound bites for WP, but is this really good encyclopedia writing?
"In 1988 the U.S. National Academy of Sciences gave a report on the subject that concluded there is "no scientific justification from research conducted over a period of 130 years for the existence of parapsychological phenomena.""
That's fine as far as it goes. It doesn't mention the really deep problems with the report, or the complaints of those who submitted papers. It doesn't mention the fact that it's badly dated.
Well, that's a summary. It's gotten better recently, the claim about "no peer review" has been taken out (: —— Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 02:19, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
So let's do something. We shouldn't just leave the article in this state. —— Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 22:02, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
The word psychic ( /ˈsaɪkɪk/; from the Greek psychikos—"of the soul, mental") refers to the ability to perceive things hidden from the five senses through extra-sensory perception, or to those people said to have such abilities. It is also used to refer to theatrical performers who use techniques such as prestidigitation and cold reading to produce the appearance of such abilities.
Belief in psychic phenomena is widespread in the United States, where a 2005 Gallup poll revealed that 41 percent of Americans believe in extra-sensory perception. [3] Psychics appear regularly in fiction and science fiction, such as the The Dead Zone by Stephen King and Jean Grey from the Marvel comic book universe. A large industry exists where psychics provide advice and counsel to clients. [4] Skeptics attribute such powers to intentional trickery or self- delusion. [5] [6]
The U.S. National Academy of Sciences delivered a report on the subject that concluded there is "no scientific justification from research conducted over a period of 130 years for the existence of parapsychological phenomena." [7] Science does not accept the findings of parapsychologists, [1] [8] [9] and no evidence of psychic phenomena has been found in a recent study. [10] Studies have also disputed the statistical analysis of the conclusions of parapsychology research. [11]
Based on martinphi's and my comments. First draft. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 21:37, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
The most famous and notable instances of psychics include the TV psychics and psychic advice psychics. We need to mention them in the lead. ScienceApologist ( talk) 22:21, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
First paragraph: good
Second paragraph: take out the word "though" and just start out with a new sentence.
Third paragraph:
Change to
That last sentence is only right. The report is very very badly dated. Here is a source, for one small area of parapsychology:
Bösch, H.; Steinkamp, F.; Boller, E. (2006). Examining psychokinesis: The interaction of human intention with random number generators- A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 132, 497-523
Here is what Hyman (CSICOP member) said in 1995, and even that is dated as further studies have been done:
I want to state that I believe that the SAIC experiments as well as the contemporary ganzfeld experiments display methodological and statistical sophistication well above previous parapsychological research. Despite better controls and careful use of statistical inference, the investigators seem to be getting significant results that do not appear to derive from the more obvious flaws of previous research. —Ray Hyman, The Journal of Parapsychology, December 1995
So I think it is well justified to put in that sentence.
"Science does not accept the findings of parapsychologists" I don't understand what you say above: if "Science" doesn't accept it, and parapsychologists do, then they can't be scientists.
"and no evidence of psychic phenomena has been found in a recent study"
Yes, but this gives that one study extreme prominence. It's too new to have been subject to the scientific process, and it makes large claims. OrangeMarlin, let me give an example: let's say you were editing the Recreational drug use article and there was a study which said that Recreational drug use was half as dangerous as previously thought. Editors wanted to put in "A recent study found that Recreational drug use was half as dangerous as previously thought." What would you do? It's a new study. It hasn't stood the test of time, and hasn't been criticized. How do you weight it? (It's really hard to put things in the lead which need nuance.)
Second criticism of the sentence: it's as if the recent study is isolated, like there isn't ongoing research, and that is the end of it. It totally twists the reality of the situation, which is that this is only a small part of an ongoing cycle of the adversarial scientific dialogue.
Here is what I would say:
Note the new Psychological Bulletin ref at the end from 2006. We need to expand the section on research to encompass a little bit of this, I guess, but for now I'd be happy to just have it in the lead. It requires a lot of research. Here is a link to the new source [11].
I think we're definitely on the right track here. Thanks for your work (: —— Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 01:09, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
As per the recent consensus, I've removed the word "claimed" from the lead. It's POV and unnecessary--"psychic" refers to an ability, regardless of whether or not the ability exists. Besides, the word "claim" is discouraged under WP:WTA. Cosmic Latte ( talk) 13:52, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help)
gallup
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help)
{{
cite book}}
: |author=
has generic name (
help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
{{
cite journal}}
: |access-date=
requires |url=
(
help); Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)
![]() | 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 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 |
Elonka, this article has undergone everything in the past, on the same issues, including an ArbCom. —— Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 02:39, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
qualifiers
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Psychic/Archive_4#Apparently_or_not_apparently
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Psychic/Archive3#.22Purported.22
RfC:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Psychic/Archive_4#RfC:_Which_defining_sentence_is_better.3F
Other:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Psychic/Archive2#Parapsychology_is_not_a_field_of_science.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Psychic/Archive2#Ridiculous
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Psychic/Archive2#Parapsychology_is_a_science
These may not be all, by a long way, and the focus on this page in particular. But as I said, you can't separate this from the same issues discussed for years on other articles, and taken to ArbCom. See the loci here [1]. —— Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 03:13, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
The article says psychic abilities have been proven not to exist. A more correct phrasing would be that they have not yet been proven to exist. If only one person in a million is psychic then studies might miss them. Failing to find such a person is not proof of nonexistance.
205.240.0.37 ( talk) 18:39, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Malcolm, you are destroying the meaning of the sentence, in which the word "field" becomes meaningless without the inclusion of its referent. It is also what the source says, so you are changing the meaning away from the sources provided. You are also on your third (or is it fourth) revert. Please stop edit warring. Bob ( QaBob) 16:54, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
OK.... I disagree that the findings of parapsychology should not be mentioned in the lead. If you think they should not be combined into a single sentence as they were, that is one thing. But the lead should not represent only one side of the argument from researchers, even if you don't believe that the field of parapsychology is scientific. Bob ( QaBob) 17:20, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
(e.c.)If we removed all "fringe sources", that would require removing most if not all of the "pro-psychic" material including any mention of parapsychology which, almost by definition, is "fringe" and therefore subject to the rules of WP:FRINGE. As it is, I am of the opinion that a lot of "fringe material" is in fact notable enough for inclusion in this article, perhaps even from a pop-culture perspective. If you admit this, I think you must admit that EQUALLY notable to this article are the "debunkers" who create sources/discourse at the same level of reliability (they aren't publishing in scientific journals showing us why Miss Cleo's hotline is not able to live up to the observable claims in her advertisements, but she isn't publishing in scientific journals either). Think MythBusters as an example of a perfectly reliable source that is at the same level as those who are claiming psychic phenomena exist. The psychic industry rakes in billions of dollars which makes their claims themselves notable enough for inclusion here. However, if Sylvia Browne is worth a mention here then so are her detractors since they are active at the same level of source reliability. ScienceApologist ( talk) 18:07, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Parapsychology is discussed in the article. But the sentence in the intro is unnecessary, and particularly that sentence, which gives the impression that parapsychology has a level of respectability that it certainly does not. Malcolm Schosha ( talk) 18:06, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Parapsychology is a field of scientific inquiry. That much is established, both outside Wikipedia and within. Ask James Randi. —— Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 23:52, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Fortunately, any one person's "view" of what the scientific community "is" is irrelevant. The sources indicate a disdain on the part of the community for claims of psychic phenomenon. That's it. However, the parity that is evinced in the wording that both you and Marinphi have inserted essentially places parapsychology as it currently exists as an endeavor which deserves careful consideration vis-a-vis this article. We see many people above weighing in that the details of parapsychological claims are almost so irrelevant to this situation as to make including even mention of parapsychology in the lead to be problematic. Instead of adhering to this consensus about the sources, Martinphi has inserted audacious attributions to the Parapsychological Association: something that seems to me to be if not in explicit violation of WP:FRINGE then, at the very least, completely disruptive to our editing process. And here you are telling me that I'm insisting that we treat parapsychology on par with other sciences? Lord no, I'm trying to get parapsychology properly described per Wikipedia policies as the parochial, quaint, and eye-rollingly outrageous opinions of pseudo-professionals who apparently think that confirmation bias doesn't apply to them when they're looking for evidence for the existence of ESP. Now, I'm not arguing that this is the wording we should use, but right now your camp has positioned something diametrically opposed to this description which means that you are promoting content which is diametrically opposed to the best sources we've got. ScienceApologist ( talk) 00:53, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Since no one is addressing my concerns about PA being in the lead, it should be moved out of the lead. -- Ronz ( talk) 18:26, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Elonka, you are right that the PA should be in the article if it's in the lead. I only put it in the lead because someone put a "who" tag (or something) on the sentence- it was originally just a source about the consensus of parapsychologists. There is a good place for mention down the page, and I'll try to deal with this later tonight. —— Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 00:45, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
(undent) Orange, Orange <sigh...> you just don't get it.
but that's ok, and I'm not all that interested in debating it with you in this particular place. arguing against someone's religious beliefs takes a certain kind of environment, and a level of patience and dedication that I'm not willing to invest here. but mark my words, that's what it is. Science is a doctrine to you, not a practice, and that is what lies at the root of all our difficulties. but we can pick that point up somewhere else. --
Ludwigs2
23:50, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
There is also a lot of plain incorrect information here "vast number of scientists who have studied and dismissed psychic as a real ability": such has not happened. "The PA is not a real science association, say on the level of the NSF or NAS" quite so, it's an association representing a sub-discipline. The AAAS includes the PA: that cements its position. I'm sure that secondary sources will say it's the association that represents parapsychologists. Basically, you can include the fact that people question the validity of parapsychological results, or you can include a statement that parapsychology is pseudoscience if you can find one (attributed). This will be balanced by statements such as that by Randi and Alcock that it is a science. But you can't say that parapsychology or its sources are to be excluded. You can think they are unscientific all you like, but you'll have to follow the sources on the matter. —— Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 23:57, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
So, we have the uncited line "Parapsychology involves research that does not fit within standard theoretical models." in the article. Are there any marginally credible scientific theoretical models put forward by parapsychologists? John Nevard ( talk) 09:22, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
1. Lack of sources for claims "and no compelling evidence of psychic phenomena has been found in more than 75 years of experiments being carried out."
2. Incorrect information "although their work is not published in peer reviewed journals."
3. Use of out dated report from CSICOP members "In 1988 the U.S. National Academy of Sciences gave a report on the subject."
4. The ludicrous claim that the PA is not a notable organization relative to the subject of psychics.
5. Moving the article away from general cultural themes to some bigtime debate between opposing camps over scientific validity.
We came to a consensus before not to do this. —— Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 22:05, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
(unindent) Here are 2 newspaper reports from 2006 [3] [4], where a spokesperson from the Royal Society gives the unequivocal view of the RS of a session of the British Association given over to paranormal researchers including Rupert Sheldrake, Perrot-Warwick scholar at Trinity College, Cambridge:"The Scientific and Medical Network, which is organising this session, lies far from the scientific mainstream and the list of speakers reflects this. Modern science is based on a rigorous evidence-based process involving experiment and observation. The results and interpretations should always be exposed to robust peer review." Trinity College also has the physics Nobel laureate Brian Josephson, who not only runs his own mind-body centre in the Cavendish laboratory (he is the only permanent member), but also espouses many fringe theories, including cold fusion and water memory. If wikipedians wish to question the existence of a scientific establishment, such as the Royal Society, the NSF and other university funding bodies, and their failure to support research into paranormal phenomena, then they are trying to create an alternative reality on wikipedia. It is an unfortunate but true fact that institutions like the National Academy of Sciences, the Royal Society, the CNRS, etc, etc, are the principal representatives of current mainstream scientific thought. To suggest otherwise is perverse: it would certainly run counter to everything that this encyclopedia supposedly represents. It seems to be futile to push a Never-never-land view of the scientific community which does not represent reality. Mathsci ( talk) 22:58, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Mathsci, did you read the debate between Sheldrake and Wolpert? I don't see how the rest of it is helping build an article. Surely you aren't still, after all these years, trying to prove parapsychology is a pseudoscience? Ok, it's a pseudoscience. Shall we agree on that? All Wikipeida editors think parapsychology is a pseudoscience. We don't treat it any differently in the article because of that, because our opinion is original research. Our opinions don't matter. This is all shooting the breeze, and I think we just need to move on. —— Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 04:03, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Apologies if some of these might be out of date- but they give a good overview of the debate, for pending mediation
Can someone point me to where this says that "psychics provide advice and counsel to millions of clients"? —— Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 04:27, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Anyone want to defend the incorrect assertion that "although their [parapsychologists] work is not published in peer reviewed journals."? I'll wait till tomorrow for a substantial source which states as much, before taking it out. —— Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 04:58, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
What did people have against this?
"Early examples of individuals thought by some to have psychic powers include the Oracle of Apollo at Delphi who was thought to provide prophecies from Apollo himself[2] as well as Nostradamus, a French apothecary who is thought by some to have had the ability to predict the future.[3] During the 19th century belief in psychics became more common and many notable individuals gained notoriety including Daniel Dunglas Home." —— Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 05:06, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Anyone want to provide us with some good negative evidence for "no evidence of psychic phenomena has been found in more than 75 years of experiments being carried out" ? —— Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 05:08, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
"In 1988 the U.S. National Academy of Sciences gave a report on the subject that concluded there is "no scientific justification from research conducted over a period of 130 years for the existence of parapsychological phenomena."
This is very old, before much of the ganzfeld or presentiment studies.
1. Is it sufficiently relevant 21 years later to include?
2. Is it relevant that two principle members of of the panel, Hyman and Alcock, were from CSICOP, and Hyman is an original fellow of the organization; that the NRC violated its own policy by not having any psychic researchers on the panel; that the chairman of the committee phoned one of the authors of a paper (done for the report) which was positive, asking him to withdraw his conclusions (later saying this was to avoid "mixed signals"). And that the committee could not offer plausible alternatives to the research they looked at, according to the report? (thus contradicting the public statement). —— Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 05:15, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Another potential problem:
I don't see the above quote anywhere in the report. It's possible I'm just missing it. Does anyone have a page number? I suspect that the quote is from a press conference. —— Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 19:54, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
The Psychic advice section [5] has remained unsourced. It should not have been inserted without sources, but assuming it can be sourced, could people please provide a short timeframe after which this will have been accomplished, or if not accomplished we can take the section out? —— Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 05:24, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
"The scientific community has not accepted this work"
Scientific community as used above is linked to Scientific consensus. However the Scientific consensus is
"the collective judgement, position, and opinion of the community of scientists in a particular field of science at a particular time" [6]
The scientific consensus is not the overall opinion of the scientific community. The scientific discipline which covers psychic affairs is Parapsychology. Thus, the scientific consensus in parapsychology is one thing, and the scientific community has not accepted it. Whether or not we, as editors, believe parapsychology is science does not matter. We have to follow the sources on it. I can provide sources, many of them skeptical, asserting parapsychology is a science. We have 10% of members of the The National Academy of Sciences who felt that parapsychological research should be encouraged- presumably they don't want to encourage pseudoscience. We also have to follow the guidance given in the Paranormal ArbCom [7].
We can, I'm sure, write around such terms, but if anyone wants to cite a scientific consensus, it belongs to parapsychology.
Any objections where the opinion of the editor is not a relevant factor? —— Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 06:01, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
The AAAS, certainly. And certainly many other sources and factors. The scientific consensus goes to the discipline or sub discipline. —— Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 20:49, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
The scientific community has rejected claims of psychic phenomena, [1]
ref is: <ref name="CaliBoard">{{cite book |last=|first=|title=Science Framework for California Public Schools|publisher=California State Board of Education|year=1990}}</ref>
This reference does not speak for the scientific community.
Further, it is in dispute other places. For months, I've been asking for a quote from it, to see if it says what it's being use to source... and the request has been ignored. Now it's being used to source the opinion of the entire scientific community! I would request that either a quotation be provided, or the source removed. —— Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 20:57, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
"and no compelling evidence of psychic phenomena has been found." is sourced to a single study which claims to present compelling negative evidence, but this is not something WP can claim. Further, science is a dialectic adversarial process, and there has not been time for peer-reviewed responses, so far as I know.
Furthermore, this article should be geared to the general reader. The general reader does not know the scientific definition of "compelling evidence," which is that the evidence absolutely compels you to believe it. Thus the statement, even if it were to be considered well sourced and true and uncontroversial, does not convey the message in an accurate manner. —— Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 02:42, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
"A study using neuroimaging published in 2008 provides the strongest evidence yet obtained that paranormal mental phenomena do not exist"
How is it that WP is accepting the author's claim for this one study, among hundreds, at face value? And since we only have access to the abstract, we don't even know what he's basing that on. A statement like that at least requires nuance. —— Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 21:04, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Copied from Orgone
Yes, kind of redundant. You want to tackle Psychic in the same way? OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 23:23, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Let's see what we can do over the weekend, and if we can't resolve it by Monday we can go ask for mediation, alright? —— Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 03:58, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
I don't think we should call any person a pseudoscientist -- although pseudoscience is not usually defined by whether its practitioners are acting in good faith. It's just not necessary to go ad hominem.
It seems to me that we can provide the reader with adequate information about the relation of science and psychic claims without making conclusory statements. If the evidence shows that decades of parapsychology research have yielded no established theory of psychic abilities, that tells the reader what they need to know, without us pronouncing judgment on the demarcation problem or calling anyone a "pseudoscientist". -- FOo ( talk) 18:24, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
That is the way Wikipedia works with this type of subject; a bog standard classical mechanics level of science, reason and logic to match, insult the subject and people working in the field. The scientific method can be applied irrespective of subject but, to self-styled sceptics and similar, if it is applied to certain subjects the science is pseudo-science irrespective of care, methodology, etc., with a similar attitude to practitioners. If it was a matter of something being searched for for decades with no proof arising form the efforts expended be classed as pseudo-science the search for the Higgs Boson would amount pseudo-science and the ten of thousands of scientists who have been engaged in that search would be pseudo-scientists but logic and consistency are not exactly strong suits among such people. Similarly with the falsifiability and repeatable experiments by numerous people, etc., arguments; straightforward at the school laboratory level but not always elsewhere, but still applicable, after all such matters as evolution and the existence of black holes have been proved by repeated experiment, have they not? RichardKingCEng ( talk) 22:29, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
OM- I'll try and summarize the problems with the lead, if you like. —— Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 07:12, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
"Psychic" matters are studied both with scientific rigor, and without it, as well as being the subject of beliefs that do not have scientific backing. Mainstream science tends to neither study, nor express interest in psychic matters. This is for various reasons based on professional culture, reputation, publication, falsifiability, conservatism, and past history of the field. A minor branch of science, known as "parapsychology", attempts to study psychic matters on a scientific basis, however the topic is generally treated as controversial and marginal by scientists outside its own field. Research outside the scientific world is usually not considered to meet the basis of formality needed to scientifically prove any given result, although some matters have been studied now and then, and skeptics ("debunkers") are often given credence in demonstrating the need for rigorous evidence-based testing. [9]
—— Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 01:52, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
This is a summary of problems in the lead, covered in more detail in the "Questions" sections above. As requested by OrangeMarlin
"refers to the claimed ability"
Qualifiers inserted again, despite consensus [10] and the Paranormal ArbCom.
"hidden from the normal senses"
Normal versus....... abnormal, giving a sense that psychic senses would be "abnormal" if they existed.
"through what is described as extra-sensory perception,"
The "described" part is another unnecessary qualifier, per above.
"A large industry exists where psychics provide advice and counsel to clients,[2] though debunkers attribute such putative powers to intentional trickery or self-delusion."
I don't know about the word "debunkers." I think sometimes they would embrace that word. We should not juxtapose criticism, especially not in the same sentence, joined by the WP:WTA "though"
"Some famous contemporary psychics include Miss Cleo, Sylvia Browne, and John Edward.[7][citations needed]"
This may have WP:BLP implications, as they are being criticized without sources per the previous sentence. In addition, the source [2] is for the psychic phone industry, and doesn't cover these kinds of psychics. And the sentence is unsourced, though that may not matter.
"The scientific community has rejected claims of psychic phenomena,"
This has the rather direct implication that parapsychologists are not part of the scientific community. It also implies that the opinions of non-experts are somehow relevant because they are "scientists," ignoring the fact that those scientists may be trained in entirely different fields. Also, it implies that the "scientific community" is a monolith, rather than sub-divided into disciplines which alone are qualified to speak on their various subjects- the latter being a deeply accepted verity. Also, the scientific community in general has not really rejected, it just has not accepted. The rejection is from major skeptics. The NAS report is not a rejection, it is saying it does not accept. Has not found evidence.
"and no compelling evidence of psychic phenomena has been found."
Hotly contested yet stated as an absolute, sourced to a single article (for which there hasn't been time for a peer reviewed response). Should be attributed, if used at all.
"A study using neuroimaging published in 2008 provides the strongest evidence yet obtained that paranormal mental phenomena do not exist."
As above, just a claim by a single article, but being accepted as gospel. This source has a abstract which provides good sound bites for WP, but is this really good encyclopedia writing?
"In 1988 the U.S. National Academy of Sciences gave a report on the subject that concluded there is "no scientific justification from research conducted over a period of 130 years for the existence of parapsychological phenomena.""
That's fine as far as it goes. It doesn't mention the really deep problems with the report, or the complaints of those who submitted papers. It doesn't mention the fact that it's badly dated.
Well, that's a summary. It's gotten better recently, the claim about "no peer review" has been taken out (: —— Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 02:19, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
So let's do something. We shouldn't just leave the article in this state. —— Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 22:02, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
The word psychic ( /ˈsaɪkɪk/; from the Greek psychikos—"of the soul, mental") refers to the ability to perceive things hidden from the five senses through extra-sensory perception, or to those people said to have such abilities. It is also used to refer to theatrical performers who use techniques such as prestidigitation and cold reading to produce the appearance of such abilities.
Belief in psychic phenomena is widespread in the United States, where a 2005 Gallup poll revealed that 41 percent of Americans believe in extra-sensory perception. [3] Psychics appear regularly in fiction and science fiction, such as the The Dead Zone by Stephen King and Jean Grey from the Marvel comic book universe. A large industry exists where psychics provide advice and counsel to clients. [4] Skeptics attribute such powers to intentional trickery or self- delusion. [5] [6]
The U.S. National Academy of Sciences delivered a report on the subject that concluded there is "no scientific justification from research conducted over a period of 130 years for the existence of parapsychological phenomena." [7] Science does not accept the findings of parapsychologists, [1] [8] [9] and no evidence of psychic phenomena has been found in a recent study. [10] Studies have also disputed the statistical analysis of the conclusions of parapsychology research. [11]
Based on martinphi's and my comments. First draft. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 21:37, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
The most famous and notable instances of psychics include the TV psychics and psychic advice psychics. We need to mention them in the lead. ScienceApologist ( talk) 22:21, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
First paragraph: good
Second paragraph: take out the word "though" and just start out with a new sentence.
Third paragraph:
Change to
That last sentence is only right. The report is very very badly dated. Here is a source, for one small area of parapsychology:
Bösch, H.; Steinkamp, F.; Boller, E. (2006). Examining psychokinesis: The interaction of human intention with random number generators- A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 132, 497-523
Here is what Hyman (CSICOP member) said in 1995, and even that is dated as further studies have been done:
I want to state that I believe that the SAIC experiments as well as the contemporary ganzfeld experiments display methodological and statistical sophistication well above previous parapsychological research. Despite better controls and careful use of statistical inference, the investigators seem to be getting significant results that do not appear to derive from the more obvious flaws of previous research. —Ray Hyman, The Journal of Parapsychology, December 1995
So I think it is well justified to put in that sentence.
"Science does not accept the findings of parapsychologists" I don't understand what you say above: if "Science" doesn't accept it, and parapsychologists do, then they can't be scientists.
"and no evidence of psychic phenomena has been found in a recent study"
Yes, but this gives that one study extreme prominence. It's too new to have been subject to the scientific process, and it makes large claims. OrangeMarlin, let me give an example: let's say you were editing the Recreational drug use article and there was a study which said that Recreational drug use was half as dangerous as previously thought. Editors wanted to put in "A recent study found that Recreational drug use was half as dangerous as previously thought." What would you do? It's a new study. It hasn't stood the test of time, and hasn't been criticized. How do you weight it? (It's really hard to put things in the lead which need nuance.)
Second criticism of the sentence: it's as if the recent study is isolated, like there isn't ongoing research, and that is the end of it. It totally twists the reality of the situation, which is that this is only a small part of an ongoing cycle of the adversarial scientific dialogue.
Here is what I would say:
Note the new Psychological Bulletin ref at the end from 2006. We need to expand the section on research to encompass a little bit of this, I guess, but for now I'd be happy to just have it in the lead. It requires a lot of research. Here is a link to the new source [11].
I think we're definitely on the right track here. Thanks for your work (: —— Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 01:09, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
As per the recent consensus, I've removed the word "claimed" from the lead. It's POV and unnecessary--"psychic" refers to an ability, regardless of whether or not the ability exists. Besides, the word "claim" is discouraged under WP:WTA. Cosmic Latte ( talk) 13:52, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help)
gallup
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help)
{{
cite book}}
: |author=
has generic name (
help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
{{
cite journal}}
: |access-date=
requires |url=
(
help); Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)