Camp Rock

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

qualifiers

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

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

RfC:

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

Other:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Removal of "outside the field of parapsychology"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Inclusion of PA in lead section

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What is scientific

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Explanations of alleged psychic powers

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

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

Problems with recent edits

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

British Association

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Questions

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

Question 1

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

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

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

Question 2

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

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

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

Question 3

What did people have against this?

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

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

Question 4

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

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

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

Question 5

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

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

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

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

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

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

Question 6

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

Question 7

"The scientific community has not accepted this work"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Question 8

The scientific community has rejected claims of psychic phenomena,

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

This reference does not speak for the scientific community.

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

Question 9

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

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

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

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

Question 10

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

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

Compromise

Copied from Orgone

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

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

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