This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||
|
I added quite a bit to the article in a recent edit. Sorry if this bothers anyone. I felt the article was seriously lacking in any real information about anomalies and appeared to be more just a list of "See also". I feel the new version more accurately describes anomalous phenomena as the proverbial glitch in the matrix without it being "all about" the paranormal. Cheers. -- Nealparr 08:02, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Someone has suggested a merge with paranormal. Although there are differences I do wonder if they are enough to justify two entries so I am not bothered either way - I'll go with the majority decision. If this is kept separate then this section needs rewriting as per my suggestions above - I'm prepared to expad on it in my sandbox and then we can all edit it up into a form we are happy with. ( Emperor 22:05, 29 August 2006 (UTC))
Although Paranormal (used to) redirects to this article, the two are not the same thing. There can be a genuine anomalous phenomenon that isn't paranormal. And things deemed paranormal are not necessarily a phenomenon. Bubba73 (talk) 23:53, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
This was my thought. Instead of listing inexplicable phenomena known to exist this article seems to only list phenomena whose existence is doubted.
There should be a discussion of some of the 'Black Boxes' in scientific theories. "Where is the dark matter?" "How can an animal evolve extra chromosomes?" "What use is gender?" "How can gravity move faster than light?" "How could altruism evolve?".
As well, the history of how some inexplicable phenomena were explained would be useful: Biologists couldn't explain how bumblebees could fly. Physicists couldn't explain how light moved through a vacuum. Chemists couldn't explain why elements could exist in a number of different weights.
A clarification of the history of scientific mysteries would be a lot more useful in looking at a difference between fringe science and pseudo-science than a list of non-verified paranormal claims.
David Cheater 07:38, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
My first sorting attempt (pro merging argument) was argued by the inclusive definitions the definitions of the articles. It was like: " Paranormal includes all Pseudoscience includes all Anomalous phenomenon" (but thats wrong, generally speaking, and was based on ya too narrow definition for pseudoscience). The problem is that the articles lack in exclusive "what they are not" definitions and if those are valid. Discussion goes to Wikiproject_Paranormal sorting and definition -- Ollj 11:08, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
You have out of body experiences and near death experiences listed seperately to mental phenomena, I can't see why, OBE's, if they existed, would clearly be mental phenomena in the sense of the category.
Perhaps anomalous phenomena is a misnomer. The advocates assert that natural explanations in terms of observer error, unusual optical reflections, etc. are inadmissable. In their stead, theories which run counter to conventional science are asserted with little evidence.
IMHO, the above is unclear, but could and should be re-moved to the main page after it's expanded. I can't tell whether it's a meta-comment (about the choice of the name of the article) or a comment about, e.g., parapsychologists. Who are the "advocates" here (what do they advocate for)? Also "theories" about what, and who is asserting them? In short, is this what you mean?--
Some skeptics hold that anomalous phenomena is a misnomer, because this implies that there are real phenomena under study. Those who believe there are real phenomena to study--parapsychologists, for example--are said to assert that natural explanations of alleged "paranormal" phenomena cannot be explained in terms of observer error, unusual optical reflections, etc. Instead of these natural explanations, the parapsychologists (and others) advance theories that, skeptics maintain, run counter to conventional science and are supported by little evidence.
If that's what you mean, there must be a simpler way to say it. :-)
Was not Quantum Physics, and even The Chaos Theory, during initial postulation rejected by mainstream scientists as a sort of " pseudoscience?" It would seem to me that a discussion on Anomalous Phenomena and pseudoscience, any articles that expand upon these, might not be complete without inclusion of fields previously included in these categories, but is no longer labeled such. - Invictus
I wouldn't say so. Quantum physics met with a lot of resistance, but because the theory itself is unusual - the effects it explains were well-known at the time. Chaos theory is mathematics, so the question was whether the theory applied to the real world. In this case, it's not clear that there are effects or a theory to work with.
I'd say so, if what you say is true. What better person to make the change than you? --LS :-)
Apparently, either there are phenomena, or there is merely coincidence. A large enough body of regularly observed coincidence (as the case of "Audie Murphy," or the family relative whom each of us has who can always tell you when the phone is about to ring) will be finally expressed by the casual observer as a discrete phenomenon. If we are to take the position that there are no anomalous phenomena, then we should replace the page with "coincincidences, misperceptions and frauds." Otherwise "phenomena" is as good a tag as anything.
Let us take for example the practice of johrei, as practiced by the Johrei Fellowship, AKA Church of World Messianity. Here a practicioner, according to the tenets of the faith, wears a Chinese character in a pouch about his neck which serves to help attract a universal divine light. In an effort to alleviate the suffering of an afflicted person, he assumes a meditative mindset and holds his hand near the affected portion of that person's body, palm-facing, and "channels divine light" toward the area. Persons so ministered to frequently go through episodes of coughing or shivering, speak of warmth, tingling in the area, etc., and walk away (subjectively, at least) improved.
Skeptics will say "hogwash" or "placebo effect" or "fraud" (never mind that there is no financial incentive to perpetrate such a fraud) or whatever. But there will be a body of people who say - "This is a part of my life experience." That much, at least, I think qualifies the obervation as a "phenomenon." Certainly, there is no scientific physical explanation for what these people experience. That would probably qualify it as "anomalous." So, perhaps the page, category, or whatever is aptly named.
And there are, to be sure, any number of claimed experiences or observations for which there is no reliable evidence that they ever even happened. Do these rise to the level of "phenomena?" Perhaps not. To be on the safe side, our discussions of phenomena might do well to start out with things for which there is at least some credible corroboration that at least some event really occurred.
I agree that conspiracy theories are not themselves anomalous phenomena; the purported conspiracies would normally allege explanations that are consistent with mainstream science. The activities may be illegal or depend on irrational behaviour, but the entire chain of events is conceivable without any departure from accepted science. Nevertheless, such theories are often proposed as explanations for otherwise unexplainable phenomena. Eclecticology 06:40 Oct 8, 2002 (UTC)
In the section "Definition," the following graf ...
There are also many cases in which no theory explains observations and no scientist can be found to make theories for them, since there is no proof of the observation in the first place. For instance, science has no interest in making theories where flying saucers come from, since there is no proof that these 'flying saucers' exist in the first place. The same is true for the paranormal. Until it is proven that paranormal effects truly exist, there is no need for an explanation of them.
... doesn't make any sense to me. It doesn't fit as a definition, and it doesn't seem to add any meaning to the overall article. Besides, there are plenty of scientists who study the paranormal. For instance, understanding paranormal beliefs is a key area of study for cultural anthropologists. Unless someone strongly objects, I'm going to delete this paragraph.
I'm going to remove this note for the time being, since there are anomalies in other fields of study (such as physics and biology), and not just the paranormal. I'd like to move the reference to the 'paranormal' section of this article, but for the time being, I can't think of a way to state it without being horribly redundant ("Someone who investigates the paranormal is called a paranormal investigator"). -- InShaneee 15:51, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
Hi all. I'd like to ask you, as people familiar with topics on or related to paranormal activity, to review the work at Natasha Demkina, "the girl with X-ray eyes", which has been undergoing a tug-of-war between a primary source and one of his critics. I've tried to bring it to at least NPOV but apparently I muddled the technicalities and there are still sourcing needs.
Would appreciate your comments -- the article is currently under protection but I think it can be taken out shortly.
TIA, - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 21:09, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Any Wikipedians out there who has had paranormal experiences ? Martial Law 09:01, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
Please sign your statements. Martial Law 05:48, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
I think the See Also list of links needs to be either sorted or put in a separate category, as Wikipedia is Not a Repository of Links, and the article seems to be a repository with an intro and some text. Firestorm 21:51, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
I do not agree with Firestrom. All the knowledge cannot be painted either black or white. Shades of gray need a different tretment. Charlie
Seeing what a few of you half-wits did to my article (based in decades of experience), I found this comment today. And I just had to share it with you. Because it just fits.
I used to lend a hand to editing a few articles on wikipedia, but it was such an exercise in futility and frustration that I had to quit. When I first came across wikipedia, it struck me as a great idea, but after having contributions that I knew to be factual repeatedly removed or edited, I have to say that the concept as a whole is ridiculously flawed and unworkable.
If you don't know, wikipedia is an online "encyclopedia" that anyone can edit. That's right, any knucklehead viewing an article can click a link and add, remove or change whatever they'd like. You're probably already laughing, wondering how anyone could possibly take such a thing seriously, and you're right. No one should.
There is a small army of wikipedia geeks who apparently park on the site for hours a day waiting to check changes and remove obvious defacements and vandalism. But there's no way they can possibly know whether something is a legitimate change or not when dealing with 875,000 different topics.
If you become involved with a certain article, you'll soon find yourself debating minutia with a bunch of humorless idiots, hell-bent on making every article read like the same clumsy, robot-drone horror show. I understand that an "encyclopedia" should have a neutral presentation. But there's neutral, and then there's mind-numbing.
Style issues aside, when there are errors continually introduced into a topic I know quite a bit about, it makes me doubt the validity of the articles that I might want to read to actually learn something. How can I have faith in a pool of information that I know for a fact is polluted? Yes, I know you could say that about the internet as a whole, not just wikipedia. But the internet doesn't tout itself as the fount of all human knowledge.
Syonara, Wikipedia. The mediocrities won. Just like they did at Everything. 3rd time's the charm. Go ahead and delete this, halfwits. See you in the history books.
Although there was a reversion there were actually two separate acts of vandalism (both related to "Dontay" and the reversion only fixed the more recent one. I've now turned things back to the version on the 13th [1] and I think I've managed to carry over the only extra bit of legitimate information that had been added - the link to the Czech version. Worth keeping an eye on this entry for further foolishness though. ( Emperor 17:30, 17 April 2006 (UTC))
I'm not really that happy with the entry - it seems slightly unfocused.
Anomalous phenomena are those that lie at the fringes of acceptance. They can be:
- Fringe science topics which may eventually be rejected or absorbed within the general consensus. Meterotites once existed in this area and cold fusion still does.
- More paranormal topics like ghosts and UFOs. Some of these may straddle the divide between this and the above, for example cryptozoolgy.
There are numerous explanations for the latter:
- Deliberate human activity - hoaxing or pranks
- Physiolgical activity - temporal lobe epilepsy, general fatigue
- Errors - misidentifications, misunderstadnings, etc.
- As yet unidentfied natural phenomena - earthlights, etc.
The important thing in the study of anomalous phenomena is to be able to sift out the data that can be easily explained (as opposed to "explained away") to see if there is actually a case to answer.
We could put the explanations under the examples. Granted it needs a polish and kicking around a bit but I wanted to get the ball rolling. Anyone got any other ideas? ( Emperor 20:01, 18 April 2006 (UTC))
There is conflict about what books should be suggested for further reading. Is there any reason why the works of Charles Fort should not be listed? He is mentioned earlier. His very name is a synonym for Anomalous Phenomena, "Fortean". It seems bizarre not to list his books and the others that were there, as a service to the reader . -- GangofOne 07:26, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
Is the prehistoric/'dinosaurs are extinct' thing good? There has been a prehistoric fish, the Selacamp (sp?), found ... 69.76.192.18 05:49, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Used to read: An anomalous phenomenon is an observed event which deviates from what is expected according to existing rules or scientific theory. Sometimes the anomalous phenomenon is expected, but the reason for the deviation is unclear (See section on anomalies in science). The study of spontaneous or hard-to-reproduce anomalies may be considered pseudoscience, partly because science needs phenomena to be reproducible. Someone seems to find that science have no need for reproducability, and someone else seems to find that the claim that, the study of non-reproducible phenomenon is pseudoscience, needs verification. Getting verification for these claims can't be that hard. Taemyr 08:35, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
This page tied together a number of disparate ideas in an attempt to make some sort of point about "anomalies". The way that the classic black swan falsification lesson of induction was lumped together with Forteanea, anomalistics, and paranormal beliefs made the article read like the essay of a more-highly-than-average-educated paranormal investigator trying to justify his craft than an encyclopedia article. We already have articles on the fallacy of induction, anomalistics, Forteanea, and paranormal beliefs of all stripes. They do not belong lumped together in such a fashion. ScienceApologist ( talk) 14:11, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm willing to listen, but right now I just can't get past the absurd contention that "anomalous phenomenon" refers only to paranormal events. Ridiculous. Redirecting! ScienceApologist ( talk) 18:53, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
"Anomalous phenomenon" appears to be synonymous with anomaly. Since to date all that has been proposed to the contrary has been extremely poor quality references, none of which really define it as a separate subject it is proposed that this page be merged with anomaly. . Jefffire ( talk) 15:28, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
[10]]
The current deletion of most of the article needs to be reversed, so we can pare it down and build it up in a professional manner. —— Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 21:37, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Please, Neal, do write an article on Forteana. Please remember to include some skeptical commentary in there as well. Thanks. ScienceApologist ( talk) 21:07, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Therefore, I redirected the page to anomaly. ScienceApologist ( talk) 14:37, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
The redirect to the new page was per this talk page. If you can source that the phrase is used more often conventionally, then something should perhaps be done. But if the usual use is paranormal, then this is correct. —— Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 02:03, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||
|
I added quite a bit to the article in a recent edit. Sorry if this bothers anyone. I felt the article was seriously lacking in any real information about anomalies and appeared to be more just a list of "See also". I feel the new version more accurately describes anomalous phenomena as the proverbial glitch in the matrix without it being "all about" the paranormal. Cheers. -- Nealparr 08:02, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Someone has suggested a merge with paranormal. Although there are differences I do wonder if they are enough to justify two entries so I am not bothered either way - I'll go with the majority decision. If this is kept separate then this section needs rewriting as per my suggestions above - I'm prepared to expad on it in my sandbox and then we can all edit it up into a form we are happy with. ( Emperor 22:05, 29 August 2006 (UTC))
Although Paranormal (used to) redirects to this article, the two are not the same thing. There can be a genuine anomalous phenomenon that isn't paranormal. And things deemed paranormal are not necessarily a phenomenon. Bubba73 (talk) 23:53, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
This was my thought. Instead of listing inexplicable phenomena known to exist this article seems to only list phenomena whose existence is doubted.
There should be a discussion of some of the 'Black Boxes' in scientific theories. "Where is the dark matter?" "How can an animal evolve extra chromosomes?" "What use is gender?" "How can gravity move faster than light?" "How could altruism evolve?".
As well, the history of how some inexplicable phenomena were explained would be useful: Biologists couldn't explain how bumblebees could fly. Physicists couldn't explain how light moved through a vacuum. Chemists couldn't explain why elements could exist in a number of different weights.
A clarification of the history of scientific mysteries would be a lot more useful in looking at a difference between fringe science and pseudo-science than a list of non-verified paranormal claims.
David Cheater 07:38, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
My first sorting attempt (pro merging argument) was argued by the inclusive definitions the definitions of the articles. It was like: " Paranormal includes all Pseudoscience includes all Anomalous phenomenon" (but thats wrong, generally speaking, and was based on ya too narrow definition for pseudoscience). The problem is that the articles lack in exclusive "what they are not" definitions and if those are valid. Discussion goes to Wikiproject_Paranormal sorting and definition -- Ollj 11:08, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
You have out of body experiences and near death experiences listed seperately to mental phenomena, I can't see why, OBE's, if they existed, would clearly be mental phenomena in the sense of the category.
Perhaps anomalous phenomena is a misnomer. The advocates assert that natural explanations in terms of observer error, unusual optical reflections, etc. are inadmissable. In their stead, theories which run counter to conventional science are asserted with little evidence.
IMHO, the above is unclear, but could and should be re-moved to the main page after it's expanded. I can't tell whether it's a meta-comment (about the choice of the name of the article) or a comment about, e.g., parapsychologists. Who are the "advocates" here (what do they advocate for)? Also "theories" about what, and who is asserting them? In short, is this what you mean?--
Some skeptics hold that anomalous phenomena is a misnomer, because this implies that there are real phenomena under study. Those who believe there are real phenomena to study--parapsychologists, for example--are said to assert that natural explanations of alleged "paranormal" phenomena cannot be explained in terms of observer error, unusual optical reflections, etc. Instead of these natural explanations, the parapsychologists (and others) advance theories that, skeptics maintain, run counter to conventional science and are supported by little evidence.
If that's what you mean, there must be a simpler way to say it. :-)
Was not Quantum Physics, and even The Chaos Theory, during initial postulation rejected by mainstream scientists as a sort of " pseudoscience?" It would seem to me that a discussion on Anomalous Phenomena and pseudoscience, any articles that expand upon these, might not be complete without inclusion of fields previously included in these categories, but is no longer labeled such. - Invictus
I wouldn't say so. Quantum physics met with a lot of resistance, but because the theory itself is unusual - the effects it explains were well-known at the time. Chaos theory is mathematics, so the question was whether the theory applied to the real world. In this case, it's not clear that there are effects or a theory to work with.
I'd say so, if what you say is true. What better person to make the change than you? --LS :-)
Apparently, either there are phenomena, or there is merely coincidence. A large enough body of regularly observed coincidence (as the case of "Audie Murphy," or the family relative whom each of us has who can always tell you when the phone is about to ring) will be finally expressed by the casual observer as a discrete phenomenon. If we are to take the position that there are no anomalous phenomena, then we should replace the page with "coincincidences, misperceptions and frauds." Otherwise "phenomena" is as good a tag as anything.
Let us take for example the practice of johrei, as practiced by the Johrei Fellowship, AKA Church of World Messianity. Here a practicioner, according to the tenets of the faith, wears a Chinese character in a pouch about his neck which serves to help attract a universal divine light. In an effort to alleviate the suffering of an afflicted person, he assumes a meditative mindset and holds his hand near the affected portion of that person's body, palm-facing, and "channels divine light" toward the area. Persons so ministered to frequently go through episodes of coughing or shivering, speak of warmth, tingling in the area, etc., and walk away (subjectively, at least) improved.
Skeptics will say "hogwash" or "placebo effect" or "fraud" (never mind that there is no financial incentive to perpetrate such a fraud) or whatever. But there will be a body of people who say - "This is a part of my life experience." That much, at least, I think qualifies the obervation as a "phenomenon." Certainly, there is no scientific physical explanation for what these people experience. That would probably qualify it as "anomalous." So, perhaps the page, category, or whatever is aptly named.
And there are, to be sure, any number of claimed experiences or observations for which there is no reliable evidence that they ever even happened. Do these rise to the level of "phenomena?" Perhaps not. To be on the safe side, our discussions of phenomena might do well to start out with things for which there is at least some credible corroboration that at least some event really occurred.
I agree that conspiracy theories are not themselves anomalous phenomena; the purported conspiracies would normally allege explanations that are consistent with mainstream science. The activities may be illegal or depend on irrational behaviour, but the entire chain of events is conceivable without any departure from accepted science. Nevertheless, such theories are often proposed as explanations for otherwise unexplainable phenomena. Eclecticology 06:40 Oct 8, 2002 (UTC)
In the section "Definition," the following graf ...
There are also many cases in which no theory explains observations and no scientist can be found to make theories for them, since there is no proof of the observation in the first place. For instance, science has no interest in making theories where flying saucers come from, since there is no proof that these 'flying saucers' exist in the first place. The same is true for the paranormal. Until it is proven that paranormal effects truly exist, there is no need for an explanation of them.
... doesn't make any sense to me. It doesn't fit as a definition, and it doesn't seem to add any meaning to the overall article. Besides, there are plenty of scientists who study the paranormal. For instance, understanding paranormal beliefs is a key area of study for cultural anthropologists. Unless someone strongly objects, I'm going to delete this paragraph.
I'm going to remove this note for the time being, since there are anomalies in other fields of study (such as physics and biology), and not just the paranormal. I'd like to move the reference to the 'paranormal' section of this article, but for the time being, I can't think of a way to state it without being horribly redundant ("Someone who investigates the paranormal is called a paranormal investigator"). -- InShaneee 15:51, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
Hi all. I'd like to ask you, as people familiar with topics on or related to paranormal activity, to review the work at Natasha Demkina, "the girl with X-ray eyes", which has been undergoing a tug-of-war between a primary source and one of his critics. I've tried to bring it to at least NPOV but apparently I muddled the technicalities and there are still sourcing needs.
Would appreciate your comments -- the article is currently under protection but I think it can be taken out shortly.
TIA, - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 21:09, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Any Wikipedians out there who has had paranormal experiences ? Martial Law 09:01, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
Please sign your statements. Martial Law 05:48, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
I think the See Also list of links needs to be either sorted or put in a separate category, as Wikipedia is Not a Repository of Links, and the article seems to be a repository with an intro and some text. Firestorm 21:51, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
I do not agree with Firestrom. All the knowledge cannot be painted either black or white. Shades of gray need a different tretment. Charlie
Seeing what a few of you half-wits did to my article (based in decades of experience), I found this comment today. And I just had to share it with you. Because it just fits.
I used to lend a hand to editing a few articles on wikipedia, but it was such an exercise in futility and frustration that I had to quit. When I first came across wikipedia, it struck me as a great idea, but after having contributions that I knew to be factual repeatedly removed or edited, I have to say that the concept as a whole is ridiculously flawed and unworkable.
If you don't know, wikipedia is an online "encyclopedia" that anyone can edit. That's right, any knucklehead viewing an article can click a link and add, remove or change whatever they'd like. You're probably already laughing, wondering how anyone could possibly take such a thing seriously, and you're right. No one should.
There is a small army of wikipedia geeks who apparently park on the site for hours a day waiting to check changes and remove obvious defacements and vandalism. But there's no way they can possibly know whether something is a legitimate change or not when dealing with 875,000 different topics.
If you become involved with a certain article, you'll soon find yourself debating minutia with a bunch of humorless idiots, hell-bent on making every article read like the same clumsy, robot-drone horror show. I understand that an "encyclopedia" should have a neutral presentation. But there's neutral, and then there's mind-numbing.
Style issues aside, when there are errors continually introduced into a topic I know quite a bit about, it makes me doubt the validity of the articles that I might want to read to actually learn something. How can I have faith in a pool of information that I know for a fact is polluted? Yes, I know you could say that about the internet as a whole, not just wikipedia. But the internet doesn't tout itself as the fount of all human knowledge.
Syonara, Wikipedia. The mediocrities won. Just like they did at Everything. 3rd time's the charm. Go ahead and delete this, halfwits. See you in the history books.
Although there was a reversion there were actually two separate acts of vandalism (both related to "Dontay" and the reversion only fixed the more recent one. I've now turned things back to the version on the 13th [1] and I think I've managed to carry over the only extra bit of legitimate information that had been added - the link to the Czech version. Worth keeping an eye on this entry for further foolishness though. ( Emperor 17:30, 17 April 2006 (UTC))
I'm not really that happy with the entry - it seems slightly unfocused.
Anomalous phenomena are those that lie at the fringes of acceptance. They can be:
- Fringe science topics which may eventually be rejected or absorbed within the general consensus. Meterotites once existed in this area and cold fusion still does.
- More paranormal topics like ghosts and UFOs. Some of these may straddle the divide between this and the above, for example cryptozoolgy.
There are numerous explanations for the latter:
- Deliberate human activity - hoaxing or pranks
- Physiolgical activity - temporal lobe epilepsy, general fatigue
- Errors - misidentifications, misunderstadnings, etc.
- As yet unidentfied natural phenomena - earthlights, etc.
The important thing in the study of anomalous phenomena is to be able to sift out the data that can be easily explained (as opposed to "explained away") to see if there is actually a case to answer.
We could put the explanations under the examples. Granted it needs a polish and kicking around a bit but I wanted to get the ball rolling. Anyone got any other ideas? ( Emperor 20:01, 18 April 2006 (UTC))
There is conflict about what books should be suggested for further reading. Is there any reason why the works of Charles Fort should not be listed? He is mentioned earlier. His very name is a synonym for Anomalous Phenomena, "Fortean". It seems bizarre not to list his books and the others that were there, as a service to the reader . -- GangofOne 07:26, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
Is the prehistoric/'dinosaurs are extinct' thing good? There has been a prehistoric fish, the Selacamp (sp?), found ... 69.76.192.18 05:49, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Used to read: An anomalous phenomenon is an observed event which deviates from what is expected according to existing rules or scientific theory. Sometimes the anomalous phenomenon is expected, but the reason for the deviation is unclear (See section on anomalies in science). The study of spontaneous or hard-to-reproduce anomalies may be considered pseudoscience, partly because science needs phenomena to be reproducible. Someone seems to find that science have no need for reproducability, and someone else seems to find that the claim that, the study of non-reproducible phenomenon is pseudoscience, needs verification. Getting verification for these claims can't be that hard. Taemyr 08:35, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
This page tied together a number of disparate ideas in an attempt to make some sort of point about "anomalies". The way that the classic black swan falsification lesson of induction was lumped together with Forteanea, anomalistics, and paranormal beliefs made the article read like the essay of a more-highly-than-average-educated paranormal investigator trying to justify his craft than an encyclopedia article. We already have articles on the fallacy of induction, anomalistics, Forteanea, and paranormal beliefs of all stripes. They do not belong lumped together in such a fashion. ScienceApologist ( talk) 14:11, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm willing to listen, but right now I just can't get past the absurd contention that "anomalous phenomenon" refers only to paranormal events. Ridiculous. Redirecting! ScienceApologist ( talk) 18:53, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
"Anomalous phenomenon" appears to be synonymous with anomaly. Since to date all that has been proposed to the contrary has been extremely poor quality references, none of which really define it as a separate subject it is proposed that this page be merged with anomaly. . Jefffire ( talk) 15:28, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
[10]]
The current deletion of most of the article needs to be reversed, so we can pare it down and build it up in a professional manner. —— Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 21:37, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Please, Neal, do write an article on Forteana. Please remember to include some skeptical commentary in there as well. Thanks. ScienceApologist ( talk) 21:07, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Therefore, I redirected the page to anomaly. ScienceApologist ( talk) 14:37, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
The redirect to the new page was per this talk page. If you can source that the phrase is used more often conventionally, then something should perhaps be done. But if the usual use is paranormal, then this is correct. —— Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 02:03, 31 March 2008 (UTC)