Talk:Parapsychology/Archive 12

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5 ← Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15

Please discuss changes

I just wanted to remind everyone that the parapsychology article is currently a featured article and that this was achieved through a long process of delicate consensus building. Certain wording choices were discussed at length on many sections, particularly the intro. If we could discuss major changes in wording that shift the tone of the article, or changes the meaning, on the talk page before installing the wording choice, it would go a long way to preserving the featured article status many editors worked hard in achieving. Thanks. --Nealparr (talk to me) 18:02, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

The changes recently made are POV, and should be reverted pending discussion. ——Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 18:05, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm hoping that serious changes will be discussed before insertion and that reversions will be discussed as well. The first step in losing FA status is edit wars. --Nealparr (talk to me) 18:08, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
The article has already become POV. It needs reversion or tags. ——Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 18:16, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Or discussion of what's POV about it. --Nealparr (talk to me) 18:24, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
That's right, Neal. Simply declaring that the article is POV without explanation is not a discussion. ScienceApologist 18:38, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Martin, Please elaborate on what is POV about it. Wikidudeman (talk) 18:40, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I could do without the "reported" in the first sentence. There's the tired argument of no qualifier necessary, but it's also inaccurate. Most parapsychological work occures in a lab where they go "looking for" psi phenomena. It's not investigating reports like your pop culture paranormal investigations / debunkery. --Nealparr (talk to me) 19:24, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

The first sentence says "Parapsychology (from the Greek: παρά para, "alongside" + psychology) is the study of reported paranormal psychological phenomena." How would you rephrase it? I do agree that some sort of qualifier is necessary as simply saying the "Study of Paranormal psychological phenomena" would be saying the phenomena exist, technically. How about:"Parapsychology (from the Greek: παρά para, "alongside" + psychology) is the study of psychological phenomena paranormal thought by some to have paranormal origins." Wikidudeman (talk) 19:27, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I think of parapsychology as being "the attempted academic study of purported paranormal phenomena". It isn't just the "study" because sometimes the people who try to "study" it are unsuccessful in their aims. ScienceApologist 20:24, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Well generally it's defined as the "study" of what are thought to be paranormal phenomena. If there is no genuine "studying" going on then it wouldn't really be parapsychology but something else. Wikidudeman (talk) 20:26, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't think so. Take, for example, the Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research center. They attempted to study certain mind-matter connections but had various levels of success convincing others that they were actually studying such phenomena rather than running random number generators into the noise of machine limitations. That parapsychologists claim to study paranormal phenomena is obvious. That they actually study it is debatable. ScienceApologist 20:32, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

How would you phrase the first sentence? We don't want to sound too redundant or confusing by saying something like "the supposed study of supposed paranormal psychological phenomena" as that's quite encyclopedic. Wikidudeman (talk) 20:34, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Like this: Parapsychology (from the Greek: παρά para, "alongside" + psychology) is the attempted academic study of purported paranormal phenomena. ScienceApologist 20:36, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

"Attempted" is sooo POV. I can't go over and post President Bush attempts to be a good president in his article for the same reasons it'd be POV here.

Here's the oft-repeated discussion that comes up on Wikipedia regarding qualifiers and the paranormal:

Statement 1: Paranormal phenomena needs a qualifier because the phenomena may not exist.
Statement 2: Paranormal is itself the qualifier because the controversy over the existence of the phenomena is wrapped up in the term itself, which means among other things "not possible according to science". In other words, paranormal already means it may not exist and adding more qualifiers is beating a dead horse and possibly bad writing.

Both sides have been argued, and there was even an arbitration surrounding it where the arbs suggested the logic behind Statement 2 is sound. But none of that matters, here's why:

The Frequently Asked Questions of the Parapsychological Association reads: In addition, in scientific practice many of the basic terms used above are accompanied by qualifiers such as "apparent," "putative," and "ostensible." This is because many claims supposedly involving psi may not be due to psi, but to normal psychological or misinterpreted physical reasons.

Parapsychologists, or at least the notable organization in the field, extends the argument that the phenomena may or may not exist (the controversy already in the term paranormal) to the statement that the phenomena may or may not be paranormal. It is ostensibly paranormal. By this logic (and the PA source), I see nothing wrong with saying "ostensible paranormal phenomena".

Ostensible is not a qualifier on whether or not paranormal phenomena exists. It's a qualifier on whether the phenomena parapsychologists study is actually paranormal. Since the leading parapsychological association agrees, we can assume parapsychologists will agree. Many parapsychologists don't even like the word "paranormal" anyway. Since it's not making a statement on whether the paranormal exists, paranormalists really have no complaint basis, and it isn't contrary to the arbitration. Since it makes no statement that paranormal phenomena does exist, skeptics have no complaint basis either.

Everyone may not agree with "ostensible paranormal phenomena", but there's really no reason why they shouldn't. It fits, is accurate, and is something parapsychologists and skeptics can agree on, for different reasons of course : ) --Nealparr (talk to me) 20:58, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

ostensible is fine with me, but simply saying that "Parapsychology is the study of..." without qualifying the term study is sooo POV in my opinion. This is in part due to the historical nature of parapsychology. There was a time in psychology's infancy when parapsychology and psychology were almost indistinguishable. Indeed, in some people's living memory, "parapsychology" was much more integrated into mainstream academic study than it is today. Today, this is much less the case: very few academic departments are content to allow for study of ostensibly paranormal phenomena. ScienceApologist 21:10, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Well discussing it is good. Either way is fine with me as most readers don't really examine the exact wording of the sentences and base their world views on that. Though accuracy is our final goal. I want to encourage discussion and not edit warring. Let's not make any edits concerning this until there is a consensus reached. Wikidudeman (talk) 21:43, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
That will be fine, as soon as the recent non-consensus changes are reverted. Then we can discuss. ——Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 04:03, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Martinphi, you haven't explained what's POV about those changes. Here's the diffs between your revert and the current version [1]. Can you explain what you think is POV about the red items? I don't like the qualifier "reported" because it's bad wording and wrong because most parapsych work occurs in the lab. Beyond "reported", the only other issue I have with it is the line that reads "of such poor quality and so poorly controlled that...". I don't have a problem with the neutrality of it (it's in the criticism section). The problem I have with it is that the wording is exclamatory and not encyclopedic. It's not "poor quality", it's "such poor quality". It's not "poorly controlled", it's "so poorly controlled". I think these sort of degree based statements are unencyclopedic, even in a criticism section. Like above when I said "attempted is sooo POV". In a sober, encyclopedic article, that would be worded simply as "attempted is POV". None of the red-lined items are so far off NPOV that it requires a revert, in my opinion. Some of the changes are basic grammar changes. --Nealparr (talk to me) 05:15, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, first, it isn't accurate: in modern times, it is mainly the study in the lab, not reports.

This:

"Many analysts of parapsychology hold that the entire body of evidence to date is of such poor quality and so poorly controlled that the entire field of parapsychology has produced no conclusive results whatsoever."

has simply made it more negative to parapsychology.

This:

"critic of parapsychology and has demonstrated that magic tricks can account for some apparently psychic phenomena.]]"

now needs sourcing or attribution, as demonstration needs a source much more than a belief. And it biases the article toward skepticism. I'm not sure how this plays out in an article about parapsychology. I believe it it technically accurate, but in an article which deals mainly with modern parapsychology, to switch suddenly to the whole field of the "psychic" leaves the reader thinking that Randi has demonstrated that some things which modern parapsychologists study can be replicated by magic. Thus, the edit is highly controversial, and tends to ruin the balance of NPOV.

And this:

"The European Journal of Parapsychology is independently published."

is irrelevant unless someone is trying to make it more and more clear how fringe parapsychology is. There is nothing technically wrong with it, but it is an example of POV pushing.

Now, some of this edit is understandable. I don't think it improved the article much, if any, but some of it is not POV. Overall, however, the intention and result was to bias the article.

There is another, really more important issue: the edits were knowingly non-consensual. They were forced into the article against consensus. This is against the spirit and rules of Wikipedia. ——Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 05:33, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll let the editors who made the changes respond to the other items, but I wanted to comment on the "EJoP is independently published" one because I thought that was a weird edit at first as well. It's not. I went looking for the publishers and was going to add that to the section when it occured to me that the reason it says "independently published" is because all the other items in that section go along the lines of "Such and such organization and their publication such and such". The EJoP is not a publication by an association where the others are, so it actually reads right. Not POV or a dig at fringeness. --Nealparr (talk to me) 06:05, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Why was "mainstream" dropped from this line: "To date, no evidence has been accepted by the >[mainstream]< scientific community as supporting the existence of paranormal phenomena." That's POV. Whoever made that change is pushing the point of view that parapsychologists (or other scientists who accept some of the data) are not a part of the scientific community, at all. It also used to read "not gained widespread acceptance". What happened to that wording? These wording changes are the significant shifts in tone I was talking about when I started this section. The earlier tone had gained consensus and FA status and significant changes like that threaten the status and stability -- and this is the intro section.
Let's start with that. Anyone opposed with changing "reported" to "ostensibly" and reinserting "mainstream" where it was removed. If so, why? Especially on the "mainstream" part. That was consensus. --Nealparr (talk to me) 06:14, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

James Randi is noted for demonstrating that magic tricks can approximate what many believe to be paranormal phenomena. That's why he's the amazing Randi, after all. There's nothing POV about stating this up front. ScienceApologist 11:18, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I've added the "mainstream" back as I agree with Nealparr on that note. Some folks who support parapsychology but are still scientists are considered "fringe" not non-scientists. Utts for example or others. Thus "mainstream" scientific community clarifies as some fringe parts of the scientific community accept parapsychology.
Finding a source that Randi has demonstrated that magic tricks can account for apparent paranormal abilities would not be hard.
The sentence "Many analysts of parapsychology hold that the entire body of evidence to date is of such poor quality and so poorly controlled that the entire field of parapsychology has produced no conclusive results whatsoever." is acceptable as it's just stating what the critics say. This is what most of them say. Wikidudeman (talk) 14:00, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Finding a source that Randi has demonstrated that magic tricks can account for apparent paranormal abilities would not be hard. Any person who has seen Randi's show and reviewed it is a source. There are plenty of reviews on the internet. Note that the caption doesn't say that Randi has demonstrated that all paranormal phenomena are done with the techniques of magic tricks, only that it is possible to use magic tricks to mimic paranormal phenomena. What, praytell, is so goddamn controversial about that statement? ScienceApologist 17:31, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea. Wikidudeman (talk) 17:38, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

The only content I have a slight problem with now is the Randi caption: it is of course indisputably true. It's just that the section on criticism is talking about parapsychology, and I think it might be hard to find a good enough source for saying that Randi has demonstrated that aspects of parapsychology -as opposed to psychic phenomena- can be accounted for by magic. The implication is that the psychic phenomena we're talking about are the ones parapsychologists hold up as evidence of psi. That's not true. I suggest just having the caption read "Stage magician and debunker James Randi is a well-known critic of parapsychology." This is not a huge deal, though.
The main issue with the article is the way it was edited: by force. ——Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 01:51, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Bullshit. You are trying to weasel your way out of Randi's deft criticism of the existence of psychic phenomena. Revert. ScienceApologist 17:04, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


           THE MULTI-DIMENSIONAL PROJECT.

Assuming that non-physical psychic, and spiritual energies exist could they be measured, and be quantified by using a new understanding of scientific method? 


      http://kheper.net/essays/Multi-Dimensional_Science.html  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.188.183.89 (talk) 15:08, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Copyedit question

Hi! I am a member of the WP:LoCE and am copyediting your article. This paragraph in the "Psychokinesis on random number generators" section confused me:

Major meta-analyses of the RNG database have been published every few years since appearing in the journal Foundations of Physics in 1986.[19] PEAR founder Robert G. Jahn and his colleague Brenda Dunne say that the effect size in all cases was found to be very small, but consistent across time and experimental designs, resulting in an overall statistical significance. The most recent meta-analysis was published in Psychological Bulletin, along with several critical commentaries.[20][21] The meta-analysis was composed of 380 studies, which some researchers say has produced an overall effect size that was very small but statistically significant.

Was the 1986 research performed by Jahn and Dunne, and did the recent meta-analysis support their findings? The paragraph's second and fourth sentences are nearly identical, but I wasn't sure how to correct it without losing or changing your intended meaning. Galena11 22:46, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Heh, good question. Yeah, when it says "effect size," it means positive effect size, that is to say, it supports the hypothesis that psi exists. And the effect was "statistically significant," meaning that there was, at most, a 5% chance that it could have happened by accident. Nice work Galena. ——Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 23:10, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

POV drift

for reasons i have explained elsewhere, i try to avoid substantial edits on this and related subjects. I have however restored a few wording that are more expressive of NPOV. figure legends are not the place for what needs more extended arguments. Randi has certainly shown that some purported psychic phenomena can be explained by trickery, he may believe that all are, and he may even be right, but that is something much harder to actually demonstrate & a figure legend is not the place to make overly expansive statements. I also changed one or two similar instances.

I think accepted compromise wording should be left alone, especially in legends and lede sections of featured articles. DGG (talk) 02:05, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
DGG, I wish you didn't avoid substantial edits on this and related subjects, but then you wouldn't be DGG. Oh well. ScienceApologist 02:23, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Heh. DGG really is able to get along with everyone. And the edits are excellent. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 04:11, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Historical status of the subject

There is an issue in this article of framing: that is parapsychology had more status in the past than it currently enjoys today. That it is not a recognized field within the academy needs to be addressed forthrightly in this article. Currently, the lead sounds a bit like we are saying that there are currently mainstream research groups that conduct research in parapsychology. We all know that this is false. So we should, I believe, reword the lead and the relevant parts of the article to indicate that while the field had prominent adherents and proponents in the past, it has been steadfastly moving more and more toward and past the edges of academia. Today, it is highly contentious to associate the term with the standard accidents of academic scholarship including such terms as "study, "theories", "models", "experiments", "hypotheses", "tests", "observations", and "resesarch". I submit that these words need to be looked at and used only in the most judicious fashion throughout this article. Currently, the article is a bit too accommodating in these regards. ScienceApologist 22:40, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Let's consider the matter: first from where do you want to source this? ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 23:32, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Sourcing can be done by means of careful analysis of where parapsychology is actually treated as an academic institution. There are a number of interesting essays on the internet about this. Here's one I chose at random: [2]
What I suggest is twofold:
  1. Noting parapsychology's denigration more explicitly. After all, even the groups which support it have statements decrying their marginalization. We can use those very statements to prove the point that parapsychology is so marginalized away from academia.
  2. Since parapsychology is so marginalized, we should be very careful about including any terminology which might mislead the reader into thinking that there is academic acceptance of the subject beyond what actually exists.
ScienceApologist 23:36, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
The article deserves no more and no less a treatment than science-related mainstream periodicals give it. Here's a current one from Nature (Feb. 2007) [3]. It uses the type of academic scholarship words that SA wants looked at and possibly removed. The Nature article is a recent article, mainstream, science-related, and specifically covers denigration. The article at Wikipedia was written in a similar, fair tone. Wikipedia should not assume a -more- negative tone than the tone mainstream science actually takes. --Nealparr (talk to me) 00:10, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
And to address SA's comment that it has denigrated so much that it has been kicked out of academia, there are currently mainstream research groups that conduct research in parapsychology, in Britain, according to the article. Quote: "Parapsychologist Deborah Delanoy at the University of Northampton suspects that the field is stronger in Britain because researchers tend to work in conventional psychology departments, and also do studies in 'straight' psychology to boost their credibility and show that their methods are sound. "We're seen to be in the same business as other psychologists," she says." --Nealparr (talk to me) 00:40, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
But this basically proves my point that the subject is marginalized to the point of obscurity. The PEAR lab closed down, fergodsakes. I think being clear that the subject is more accepted in Great Britain is a fine statement to have in our article, but right now we are too accommodating of the POV that it represents a legitimate academic subject. ScienceApologist 18:14, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm not going to get into a run-around-in-circles conversation about parapsychology's legitimacy as an academic subject. That's been addressed time and time again. For one thing, it can be measured objectively without inserting opinion. Either there are academic programs or there are not. The article clearly represents how many there are. The words you're talking about removing ("study", "theories", "models", "experiments", "hypotheses", "tests", "observations", and "resesarch") are the words used in the sources (including the critical sources). The writers who wrote the sources were fully aware of how widespread parapsychology is when they wrote them. Purposefully removing them is original research in spirit and letter. --Nealparr (talk to me) 20:00, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
You're also talking about a major rewrite on an article that has gone through several peer reviews, several point of view disputes and eventual consensuses, was a major focus of an arbitration, and has eventually gained featured article status, just to represent the topic more negatively than it already is (when it already has a lengthy criticism section detailing your major points), and the method you want to use to do that is original research? That doesn't seem very productive when the goal of Wikipedia editing is to produce featured articles. --Nealparr (talk to me) 20:18, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

No, my goal is to fairly characterize the subject. There are two points I find salient:

  1. The marginalization of parapsychology
  2. The more positive reception of the subject in the UK.

That's it.

ScienceApologist 20:27, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Both are covered here: [4] --Nealparr (talk to me) 21:01, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Gentleman, it is only in the United States where funding for parapsychology has waned. Even though the Pear lab closed down this year, two more popped up in Europe (at Lund and Coventry). Regardless, the decrease of funding in the US is not a symptom of parapsychology being 'less academic'. Funding has waned for NASA since the 70's too, but does that make their work less scientific? Science Apologist, if you want to fairly characterize the subject of academic parapsychology, I suggest that you investigate the references included in the present parapsychology article more thoroughly (the ones from Psychological Bulletin, British Journal of Psychology, and Foundations of Physics make particularly good starting points). There you will find mainstream academic sources using the very words that you are attempting censor from this article. --Annalisa Ventola (Talk | Contribs) 21:05, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Good to know it. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 22:32, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
The PEAR article in the Foundations of physics is just about the crappiest journal reference I can imagine. I would recommend discounting anyone who publishes as such as an outright crank. I'm not a psychologist so I cannot comment on how inclusions happened in the other two. ScienceApologist 17:12, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Glad to see that your outright dismissal of scientific discourse that doesn't gel with your point of view isn't just limited to parapsychology. --Annalisa Ventola (Talk | Contribs) 01:18, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Riiight. So anyway, the point is that the amateurish and poorly vetted sources that try to indicate some academic rigor for this subject are themselves highly problematic and quite obviously controversial. We are confined by neutrality to make sure that readers know how fringe and marginalized the so-called "field" is. ScienceApologist 15:31, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
The suggestion that these sources are "amateurish and poorly vetted" is simply your uniformed opinion. Now, I am not physicist so I'm not sure about the status of Foundations of Physics, but the Psychological Bulletin is one one of the most widely circulated journals published by the American Psychological Association. The British Journal of Psychology is it's European counterpart. These are both well-established and well-respected publications in the field of psychology. We've already stated in the article that parapsychology is a fringe science and that is has its critics. But being 'fringe' does not mean that it lacks academic rigor. This article has received its Featured Article status because it already satisfies Wikipedia policies and presents a balanced view of a controversial subject. Please stop trying to impose your apologetics on this article. --Annalisa Ventola (Talk | Contribs) 17:01, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Being fringe does mean that a subject lacks academic rigor simply because the more eyes on a subject the better refined the argumentation. Claiming otherwise is making assumptions about the abilities of parapsychologists to commit feats of academic prowess without having the exposure and indeed the critical eyes cast upon them necessary to a healthy discipline. Effectively you are saying that because these people who believe in spooky powers of the mind are able to conduct research and coordinate projects while simultaneously being marginalized they must somehow be more reliable then any other random academic who manages to publish things that aren't routinely denigrated and dismissed out-of-hand. There is simply no other academic subject for which this audacious claim can apply. The terrible methodology and outright inability for parapsychologists to get themselves published MOST OF THE TIME needs to be made explicitly clear in the article. Wikipedia should not be entranced by publication bias. Just because some third-rate researchers happened to be able to get a couple of papers published in respected journals doesn't lend imprimatur to the subject. We need to be careful that this article doesn't become an appeal to authority. Right now, it operates as such by focusing too much on the "respectable publications" which themselves are not all that impressive. ScienceApologist 18:24, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
This article was built from mainstream sources and journals in order to satisfy the notability guidelines at Wikipedia. They are not there to "prove" that parapsychology is mainstream, only to satisfy editors who demanded that we not reference "fringe" publications in the article. I wish that I had the luxury of time to waste responding to all of the factual errors in your responses line by line. Your sweeping generalizations about what you think parapsychology is only reveal that you are ignorant of the history of and the depth of this field. Please find someplace else to espouse your fictions and promote your materialist agenda. --Annalisa Ventola (Talk | Contribs) 19:00, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
This article is built from weighting some sources more than other sources by stretching the intention of notability and sourcing requirements way out of whack. The article adopts a preposterous perspective that links parapsychology to other academic fields when it is, in fact, often considered an embarrassment to many who are associated with its practitioners. Not only should we not reference fringe publications, we also shouldn't pander to parapsychologists themselves since primary sources are notoriously unreliable in terms of sourcing. The best overviews and secondary sources we have on the subject are clear: parapsychology is at best a highly contentious subject and at worst something which has no respectability at all within the context of academia. Simply stated, the people who really are passionate true believers in this subject have held articles like this hostage for too long. We need dispassionate and reasonable evaluations that let the reader understand how marginalized and ridiculed a lot of the so-called "research" that goes on this so-called "field" in order to have an article worthy of FA status. ScienceApologist 19:16, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia recommends the usage of secondary sources and journal articles for science articles and that's what we have done here. I suspect that the 'best sources' are the ones that you happen to agree with, not ones that are necessarily neutral. And as I should've corrected above, parapsychologists are not 'true believers' in the phenomena that they study. Enjoy creating your straw men and knocking them down, Science Apologist. Dispassionate and reasonable evaluations are very much needed for these articles, but they should be made by people without an agenda to promote, and as your user name suggests, you are not without an agenda.
Apologists: individuals systematically promoting causes, justifying orthodoxies, or denying certain events, even of crimes. Apologists have been characterized as being deceptive, or "whitewashing" their cause, primarily through omission of negative facts (selective perception) and exaggeration of positive ones, techniques of classical rhetoric. --Annalisa Ventola (Talk | Contribs) 19:36, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
The consensus of Wikipedia is to use sources well so as to not engage in original research which has not been accomplished at this article. The best sources are those sources which characterize and contextualize the entirety of this peculiar endeavor. It is quite possible that we may find on careful evaluation that distinguishing between paranormal research and parapsychology is, in fact, a neologistic enterprise meant to lend more credibility onto a subject which is, frankly, usually only found on trashy television shows and sensationalist tabloids. This may be, in fact, the place where we should be getting most of our sources since that is the place where the subject has its greatest degree of visibility. You would do well to read Wikipedia's neutrality policy as well as the bits on article ownership. Like it or not, I'm here to stay and you're going to have to deal with me whether you like my name or not.
And speaking of names, two can play at your little game: Ventola: individuals systematically playing football as a striker. Ventola has been characterized showing real star potential including scoring against eventual European Cup winners Manchester United. --ScienceApologist 19:45, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
I suspect that trashy televisions show and sensationalist tabloids are the only places where you've gotten your information about this field. Read a book sometime. --Annalisa Ventola (Talk | Contribs) 19:52, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
You suspect incorrectly. ScienceApologist 19:55, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
I see nothing wrong with the source in question. The "Foundations of physics" is a well reputed scientific journal, The study in question has been cited 47 times and both of the authors are also reliable and reputable. Wikidudeman (talk) 18:10, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
There is nothing wrong with the journal, per se, only the attempted conclusions implicitly made in this article about the supposed mainstream status of the research. As is reported in the Nature article about the closing of PEAR, the reason that they only were able to publish in the mainstream once in the last 20-some-odd years is that, per admission of the authors, they had a hard time justifying their work to most external reviewers. ScienceApologist 18:24, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
What would you suggest? Specifically. Wikidudeman (talk) 18:26, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Problems with tone

The major problem that this article has is that it presumes that because something is published in a respectable journal or because a proponent has a position at a major research institution that therefore the subject itself must derive respectability. This is simply not the case. We need to be clear that parapsychology is on the extreme fringe of academic legitimacy and is not the "respectable arm" or paranormal research as many here at Wikipedia seem to think. What we have are various scientists who have interest in a rather weird belief that has, as of yet, had no corroboration that there are psychic energies observably at work in the world. I will shortly list the wordings and weightings of this article that are leaning the article too heavily to this peculiar original research point-of-view. ScienceApologist 18:29, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

We'll need a lot of sources more reliable than the current ones that specify that parapsychology is extremely fringe in order for us to give the tone that it is such. Wikidudeman (talk) 18:35, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

A lot of the best secondary and tertiary sources you have are relegated to support roles in our article when they should be the starting point or, indeed, the basis for our article. For example, Bauer's 1984 overview on Criticism and Controversy in Parapsychology [5] is a source that explicitly states:

"First of all even the question of competence is in dispute. Who is entitled to be considered as a 'parapsychologists and vice versa, who is allowed to act as a critic in this area? It is not difficult to see that a homogeneous group of parapsychologists characterized by certain qualifications does not exist. The necessity of a curriculum preferably on an academic level and of professionalisation is well recognized (Shapin and Coly, 1976; Johnson, 1977); but without an organisational basis, financial support, and the corresponding acceptance by the scientific community, realisation is only possible on a limited scale. In short, there are no authorities in parapsychology in the sense of representatives of an accepted body of opinions, who are supported by most scientists involved."

This article is only used to support one claim in the criticism section when it properly could provide an adequate and neutral framing for the entire article.

ScienceApologist 19:03, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Well make some edits so we can judge whether or not they will work out. I don't know what sort of changes you would make so I think it would be best to make them just so we can see and if they are disputed they can be changed to be improved or reverted. Wikidudeman (talk) 19:06, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't see how a work criticizing the status of the field almost 25 years ago is going to provide a framework for a neutral discussion of the field today. --Annalisa Ventola (Talk | Contribs) 19:11, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
True, it's actually in a worse position today than it was 25 years ago. I'm going to put a tone template on the article and begin to make edits. ScienceApologist 19:18, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
No template is needed if you are planning to make the edits. Wikidudeman (talk) 19:40, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Well, I guess that's true. I'm still gathering sources and trying to see where to go with all this, though. I would appreciate keeping the template up to see if it can generate some publicity. I may start an RfC or post on the fringe noticeboard as well. ScienceApologist 19:54, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Just to let you know that I'm still gathering ideas for a proposal and some edits. I like to move carefully on featured articles. ScienceApologist 15:41, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Issue with peer review

I always seem to be the bearer of bad news, but there is a major problem with this article as I currently see it:

While peer review journals are wonderful, we need to be careful that focusing too much on peer-reviewed articles is weighing the position of this subject too much towards academia where it clearly doesn't belong. The fact of the matter is that parapsychology is ultimately an amateurs' game: a sideshow that makes inroads into academia about as much as racial intelligence theories or holocaust revisionism or any other fringe perspective you care to name that has notable academics supporting it. Just because something is published in a peer-reviewed journal doesn't mean that the paper is somehow representative of the subject it purports to be about. In fact, quite to the contrary, the paper is more likely to be relevant to the editorial philosophy of the journal itself. That is, unless there is a respected peer-reviewed journal within parapsychology that has mainstream recognition, trying to claim legitimacy by citing the pittance of research that made it into the noise of respectable journals is not a very sound way of organizing an article.

What's to be done? We need to make a collection of overview secondary sources that describe what parapsychology is and how it is/is not related to the relevant mainstream fields. From there we can describe the major parts of parapsychology and begin to evaluate what "studies" are of importance to believers and what studies have received note in the mainstream. I think that what we will probably find is no consensus among believers since there is no formal process for vetting and very few parapsychology ideas/research studies which have made even a passing impression on the mainstream. PEAR received its notability perhaps mostly out of bemusement rather than any serious consideration of the ideas it was purporting, for example. I imagine if we carefully decide what ideas are notable and what ideas are too obscure we may find the article looks quite a bit different. This is fair warning.

ScienceApologist 19:38, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. The most relevant and most reliable sources are those published in reputable peer reviewed journals, this is academia. Parapsychology has been studied and investigated by all sorts of people, not simply amateurs. We can't just remove relevant peer reviewed studies. Wikidudeman (talk) 19:43, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
But the most important people who study parapsychology are the amateurs. Who gets the most funding, sponsors the most projects, and indeed conducts the most investigations in parapsychology? Is it the academy? No. It's amateurs, tabloid journalists, and sensationalist television talk shows. This is what distinguishes this subject from the academy. It is fundamentally a popular subject: not an academic one. In fact, the academic sources in this case probably deserve less weight than the popular sources. ScienceApologist 19:53, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
I should've addressed these questions before. The most important people who study parapsychology are those who reside in universities and/or private laboratories and publish their research in peer-reviewed journals. Amateurs are typically referred to as paranormal investigators and this article is not about them. My experience of amateurs is that they are self-funded hobbyists who generally don't share their work outside of their web pages or the occasional book deal/television show, so I am curious about where you get your information when you say that they 'get the most funding'. Parapsychology is fundamentally an academic subject. The 'paranormal' or 'paranormal investigation' is a popular subject. --Annalisa Ventola (Talk | Contribs) 16:19, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
An interesting opinion, but one that cannot be reasonably considered to be anything other than that. As such, Wikipedia cannot be confined to the original research you espouse. The publication of parapsychology in journals that are mainstream is notoriously weak and inventing one's own "in shop" journals to get around this problem is a typical way for pseudoscience to operate. For example, if psi is a real phenomena then why aren't people including it in analyses outside of parapsychology? If there really is evidence that human beings have psychic abilities, why doesn't it show up in the medical journals as a phenomena for which we need to control? No, frankly, there simply isn't any acceptance of this fringe belief outside the small and marginalized community which rallies around it. The problem is that you are adopting a perspective that is too narrowly your own and doesn't have the scope and distance necessary to fully and neutrally describe the notability of the subject. Your experience with amateurs is not something we can cite here in the encyclopedia, for example. The reason that parapsychology could be considered to be a fundamentally amateur subject is because the amateurs have the visibility while the marginalized academics are left to scrounge for themselves on the fringes of academic obscurity. We need to think about what makes this subject notable: is it the fact that a few people with PhDs think that they're better than the majority of amateurs who hold similar beleifs or is it the fact that this is of popular interest? ScienceApologist 16:32, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Just because I am using a conversational tone on this talk page does not mean that I am promoting original research for the article. Again, I am not trying to argue that parapsychology is mainstream. It's just that when you argue that "all crows are black" (i.e. parapsychology has not received any mainstream attention, parapsychology does not exist in academia, parapsychologists are only tenured weirdos, etc..) all I have to do is show you a white crow. For example, you suggest that the work of parapsychologists hasn't shown up in medical journals. I can find at least one white crow in the July 2005 issue of the Lancet. Again, you know very little about my perspective since you have not read my research nor talked to me outside of this talk page. And when it comes to demarcating between parapsychology and the work of amateurs, it's not necessary to defer to my opinion. The arbitration committee has already ruled that "parapsychology should not be confused with sensational, unscientific beliefs and stories about "the paranormal". They also ruled that "In addition to mainstream science which generally ignores or does not consider the paranormal worthy of investigation, there is a scientific discipline of parapsychology which studies psychic phenomena in a serious scientific way, and popular culture concepts which have a following either in historical or contemporary popular culture, but are not taken seriously or investigated even by parapsychology." [6]. So if you want to rewrite this article promoting amateur investigators as the face of parapsychology, you are going to run into a lot of resistance, and not just from me. --Annalisa Ventola (Talk | Contribs) 17:22, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
The fact of the matter is that parapsychology is ultimately an amateurs' game: a sideshow that makes inroads into academia about as much as racial intelligence theories or holocaust revisionism or any other fringe perspective you care to name that has notable academics supporting it.

You are wrong. There are a plethora of academic departments studying parapsychology, offering salaries to full-time parapsychologists, and publishing in respected journals. What you have stated above is a straw man argument. This article represents the consensus of many editors coming from many different backgrounds who were able to put aside their differences and create a neutral article using the best sources. You want to take it down and reorganize it to promote your position? Good luck. --Annalisa Ventola (Talk | Contribs) 19:47, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
There aren't a "plethora of academic departments". That's an outrageous and unfounded claim that is not supported by even the most sympathetic of sources which decry the marginalization of the subject within the academy. Just because a few weirdos take a salary from a university and have tenure doesn't mean that the subject suddenly is mainstream and acceptable. It quite plainly isn't. Frankly, the consensus of the editors here seems skewed toward an accommodation of a small group of people who are clamoring for mainstream recognition of their pet subject (like yourself). I recognize that you have familiarity with your beliefs, but you are clearly very biased in your advocacy of a legitimacy for this subject. ScienceApologist 19:53, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I should've said 'academic laboratories' instead of departments. There are no departments of parapsychology, just psychology departments with parapsychology labs. And it's not just 'weirdos' with tenure. Some of my friends have been hired into these labs directly after earning their PhD. The article already recognizes that this is a tiny field at the fringes of academia. You don't know me at all, so you couldn't possibly know anything about my beliefs. And I highly suspect that you have NOT read my latest study, so I doubt that you know anything about my pet subjects either. --Annalisa Ventola (Talk | Contribs) 02:12, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Whether they're your friends or not and whether they have PhDs is quite beside the point. The fact is that the parapsychologists tend to believe that there is this thing "psi" that has yet to have any confirmation outside of the group of people who believe that this thing "psi" exists. It's the classic sign of pseudoscience and deluded thinking. ScienceApologist 16:13, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
The point was that you said that only tenured weirdos study parapsychology universities, and that is an uninformed assumption on your part. What parapsychologists believe in their personal lives is irrelevant do what they do in their laboratories. Much research on psi and/or anomalous psychology takes place with supposed reality of psychic abilities, ghosts, or whatever still in question. --Annalisa Ventola (Talk | Contribs) 18:01, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Do you know of any parapsychologists who do not believe that some paranormal phenomena exist? ScienceApologist 18:55, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes I do. --Annalisa Ventola (Talk | Contribs) 19:11, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Can we cite them in this article? ScienceApologist 20:07, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Christopher French is an associate PA member and very vocal about his lack of belief in psi phenomena. He would be a good place to start. --Annalisa Ventola (Talk | Contribs) 20:53, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Amateurs aren't reliable and I wouldn't even call amateur investigations real investigations. Wikidudeman (talk) 20:05, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Amateurs are reliable for subjects that are amateur. I submit that this subject is mainly an amateur endeavor supported mostly by media presentations and the paranormal investigators and the like who charge the general public for their services. Certainly the academic side of this subject is not where the most action is! ScienceApologist 20:23, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
SA asked me to comment. Historically, in the 20th century, PP was an attempt--in my opinion a good faith serious attempt-- to find a scientific basis for psychic phenomena. As most of us see things, it failed to do so--which is not saying there could be no basis, but the failure (at least in the eyes of other scientists) has decreased interest in this approach. As SA says correctly, those now interested are rarely those who really do attempt in a professional manner to find scientific evidence. But to avoid confusion, I think it would be well to keep this article concentrated on the past and present attempted science, and use a term like psychic phenomena for the popular views of these subjects. DGG (talk) 20:35, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
That's true: it is what the ArbCom recognized, when it made the distinction between academic and popular parapsychology. Did you know that Sylvia Browne says she is a parapsychologist? We could rename this "Parapsychology (academic)," but the article is really already on the academic part, so I really see no particular need. Also, it would lead to redirecting "Parapsychology" to "Psychic." ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 20:45, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
I definitely agree with this sentiment, but think that we need to decide how to best "concentrate" the article. This needs to be done carefully because the subject has changed in respectability over the years. Historical contexts are provided by sources such as Bauer to good effect. Perhaps we can do a "then and now" kind of development. What do others think? ScienceApologist 20:39, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
That's true DGG: it is what the ArbCom recognized, when it made the distinction between academic and popular parapsychology. Did you know that Sylvia Browne says she is a parapsychologist? We could rename this "Parapsychology (academic)," but the article is really already on the academic part, so I really see no particular need. Also, it would lead to redirecting "Parapsychology" to "Psychic." Academic parapsychology is not less respectable now than it was, as far as I know. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 20:45, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Do we have any sources that indicate that Sylvia Browne is not a parapsychologist? As it is, I think she may be one of the most famous since the title is basically self-applied (see Bauer). ScienceApologist 20:54, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Sylvia Browne is not a member of the Parapsychological Association and she has never published research on a parapsychological topic in a peer-reviewed journal. The terms 'psychic' and 'parapsychologist' are not synonyms. --Annalisa Ventola (Talk | Contribs) 02:12, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
That's interesting. Are the people who ran PEAR members of the Parapsychological Association? Is that affiliation necessary for what makes a parapsychologist? ScienceApologist 15:33, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes, the PEAR lab members were also PA members. I wouldn't say that the affiliation is necessary, but most people who do research on parapsychological topics in academia are PA members. --Annalisa Ventola (Talk | Contribs) 16:06, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
This is definitely a good direction we're headed in. Is there a quick way to verify PA affiliation? If PA affiliation is what we're going on, we might consider, for example, using that as a framework. ScienceApologist 16:08, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes, you can consult the PA member index. --Annalisa Ventola (Talk | Contribs) 19:11, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Jahn isn't a member. Neither is Dunne. So where is your evidence that the PEAR lab is a PA affiliate? ScienceApologist 19:56, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Roger Nelson is a full PA member. --Annalisa Ventola (Talk | Contribs) 20:58, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Minus the PA, that's about right. SA, you don't want to go into secondary sources as much as you think you do. We could, of course, use a textbook on parapsychology or Radin's work, and put in some stuff by Alcock. But I doubt you'd want to go there: it would make the article more pro-parapsychology. Yes, you are right that if we really delved into what studies are notable to an article on parapsychology, we would come up with a different article- one which had a lot of content you would feel weighted the article in the direction of parapsychology. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 23:00, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I was hoping to go for overview articles that look at the entire discipline rather than something which deals with the subject. Framing and all. ScienceApologist 15:36, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

FA plea

It took hours and hours of work to get this article to FA status. I haven't read through the massive amounts of comments above, but please let's drop these templates, stop edit warring, and discuss it. People get paid for their work at Wikipedia in having the satisfaction of getting an article to featured status. Please consider that and stop the disruption and let's work it out. --Nealparr (talk to me) 00:34, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind, I'm done wasting my time when ONE editor can disrupt the whole damn thing. --Nealparr (talk to me) 00:39, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
This is the frustration that many of us have experiencing with regards to Martinphi. Consider unwatching the page for a week and coming back later, which is what I did (in fact, i have not had parapsychology watchlisted since September). Please don't leave the project, though. Antelan talk 00:58, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm glad to hear that you consider SA to be disruptive. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 01:44, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that he is saying that at all. Shot info 01:47, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

That isn't what he meant to say. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 01:53, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Martinphi, that type of intentional misinterpretation of sources (the source being me, in this case) is pathognomonic of your broader editing techniques. Antelan talk 02:13, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
No. Maybe that's not what you were thinking, but it is a valid inference from what you said: you stated that what Nealparr was experiencing with SA was similar to what others experienced with me. Nealparr had talked about disruption. You were, thus, calling me disruptive, while at the same time admitting that in your opinion what SA has done is similar to what I have done- in other words, in your opinion, we're both disruptive. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 02:30, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
By that same syllogism, you are now admitting that you are disruptive. Your choice is either to agree that you are disruptive, or you to admit that your inference is erroneous. Antelan talk 05:24, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
I merely observed you. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 06:53, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
That may be so, but you're misinterpreting your observation and then informing the observed that this interpretation of his actions is actually what he was doing, rather than what the observed actually was doing. Shot info 07:03, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Look, since I'm leaving I can say what I want to say : ) I'm not leaving because of ScienceApologist. He may think he has to fight pov-pushing, but his high-science or extreme-skepticism or whatever it's called is just pov-pushing on the other end of the spectrum. It's not mainstream at all. It's the other side and just as fringe. Extreme points of view like that are a dime a dozen, and there's nothing special about it. It is disruptive, but it's completely mundane. Remarkable are the editors who actually try to build consensus, and in this article the consensus was to build it like other mainstream encyclopedias, none of which do anything like what ScienceApologist wants. He doesn't feel it is negative enough, and so he's trying to tear apart the consensus already in place here in an effort to make the article more negative. That doesn't piss me off. That's normal, mundane, boring. What ticks me off here is that this isn't a fledgling article. It's an article built over a year's worth of time. My time (and yours and yours and yours), not his. But if it wasn't him, it'd be someone else and I'm just not interested anymore. I'm a goal-orientated person. If the goal isn't to build consensus and achieve FA status, I personally don't see the point. I'm leaving, and not in a I'm-going-to-go-register-a-sock-puppet kind of way. It's technically a wikibreak, but I don't see how anything will change anytime soon. --Nealparr (talk to me) 02:47, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

The consensus that we achieved with this article is remarkable and it will prevail. Don't let all of this barking scare you off. --Annalisa Ventola (Talk | Contribs) 03:12, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it. Shot info 05:25, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia works by building consensus. --Nealparr (talk to me) 06:00, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Consensus is typically reached as a natural product of the editing process; generally someone makes a change or addition to a page, and then everyone who reads the page has an opportunity to either leave the page as it is or change it. Shot info —Preceding comment was added at 06:04, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Note that consensus can only work among reasonable editors who make a good faith effort to work together to accurately and appropriately describe the different views on the subject. --Nealparr (talk to me) 06:13, 14 November 2007 (UTC)


As ScienceApologist once said, "I don't pretend to understand the quirkiness of a community that simultaneously has WP:AGF along with WP:SPADE, WP:CIV along with WP:DICK, WP:NPA along with WP:DE, and WP:CON with WP:IAR. It's a tightrope we all walk on." [7] Antelan talk 06:15, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

True that. --Nealparr (talk to me) 06:17, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Coupled with the concept of editing while on a serious wikibreak LOL!  :-) Shot info 06:27, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Or dropping digs in at someone while they're away, huh? : ) I'm done contributing. Doesn't mean I'm not going to respond to childish unnecessary comments. --Nealparr (talk to me) 06:34, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
If only the digs were dug while you where away, hmmm ;-). Remember, your the one who spat the dummy here. Have enough editors soothed away your troubles with enough "Please stay" pleas? Or perhaps you could just adopt a bit of WP:NAM coupled with a bit of WP:CHILL? :-) Shot info 06:57, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't recall ever talking to you in my comments nor being uncivil with ScienceApologist who knows exactly how I feel about his point of view, and knows I consider it extreme. So you can take all of your out-of-the-blue personal attacks and find some other place to post them. How about a little WP:NPA or WP:DICK? Save it for someone willing to put up with it. --Nealparr (talk to me) 07:09, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
-Sigh- But I'll also take that WP:CHILL and end on a good note. No hard feelings to anyone here (Shot Info, ScienceApologist, Antelan, etc.). I am a fan of Wikipedia (see my departing essay). It's just not for me. Good luck everyone. --Nealparr (talk to me) 08:24, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm not attacking you, but you have to admit, WP is resplendent with editors who get their knickers in a knot, and storm out of the building....then come back. I was just hoping you would be somewhat more original. Nevertheless, enjoy your wikibreak, but make it a wikibreak...no peaking now :-) (PS: note the emoticon). Shot info 10:09, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
I had to cleanup a bit first. Honestly, I'm so busy IRL that I won't have time to peak : ) --Nealparr (talk to me) 10:24, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
It's best to ease your way in. I edited the first few days when I took my 2 month wikibreak. It's like tapering off of a drug... Antelan talk 06:33, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Tone Tag

That tag needs to disappear. As Wikidudeman said above, it is inappropriate for Science Apologist to place a tag for edits that he plans to make himself. And his complaints are not specific enough for anybody else to do anything about them. (Unless of course, someone wants to draft a major rewrite wiping out all of the references peer-reviewed journals and featuring the efforts of psychics and ghost busters instead.) --Annalisa Ventola (Talk | Contribs) 02:25, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Annalisa, I understand what you're saying about that. The problem is that tags are the last resort for an editor. If after a while SA's contentions fail to persuade, then let's take it off. However, as I see it editors have a right to tag when in good faith they find that the article does not meet with their understanding of the Wikipedia rules. To revert tags is to completely silence an editor's influence on the article for the duration of, say, a mediation process, and I don't think that is appropriate. On the other hand, keeping it on forever is also not appropriate. But it can be left for a while. If the Arbitration Committee has failed to deal with SA, we will simply have to bend with the winds to the extent that we can without violating NPOV. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 02:39, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Last resort? I haven't see any effort to do anything here but complain. Nor has he cited the specific Wikipedia rules that this article is supposedly breaking. --Annalisa Ventola (Talk | Contribs) 03:14, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
The general consensus as of now seems to be that it is not necessary, and SA hasn't responded, even to my point that he'd be quite disappointed if we started doing as he says. I'll take it off, but in general I believe we need to give tags a lot of leeway. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 05:18, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
I personally have no problems with editors adding tags as they wish on articles they wish to (it's called editing, regardless of the status of the article). However, after reviewing this, IMO, I can see that there are "issues" that perhaps need addressing but they can be addressed better (again IMO) by adding the tags into the appropropriate sections rather than at the top of the article. I suspect that SA is offline at the moment, and I will support his decision in adding in tags throughout the article to aid in editing, but not at the top. At least, not at the top without a comment in the talk page to let us know where to begin :-). Shot info 05:24, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
As I said above, I can see why one might not want the tag on the article. I do, however, want to get some outside opinions on the matter. DGG seemed to offer a good idea, but I would, frankly, like some more opinions from other editors about how exactly this article should be framed. ScienceApologist 15:39, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

First sample edit to the lead (to let people know where I plan on going)

I have made the following edit to the lead [8]

Now let's review my rationale:

  • The research has been published in mainstream journals including Psychological Bulletin, Foundations of Physics, and the British Journal of Psychology, as well as specialist publications such as the Journal of Parapsychology. changed to The research is normally published in publications devoted to the subject such as the Journal of Parapsychology though articles relating to the subject have on rare occasion appeared in mainstream journals such as Psychological Bulletin, Foundations of Physics, and the British Journal of Psychology. -- The rationale for this is that the place where parapsychology gets published most often is the place we need to let readers know about. That there have been a smattering of mainstream periodicals that have had a few parapsychology articles is not the most relevant to the subject. The point is that parapsychology happens most often outside of the mainstream.
  • Experiments conducted by parapsychologists have included the use of random number generators to test for evidence of psychokinesis, sensory-deprivation Ganzfeld experiments to test for extra-sensory perception, and research trials conducted under contract to the United States government to investigate the possibility of remote viewing. changed to Notable attempts to show the existence of parapsychological phenomena have included the use of random number generators to test for evidence of psychokinesis, sensory-deprivation Ganzfeld experiments to test for extra-sensory perception, and research trials conducted under contract to the United States government to investigate the possibility of remote viewing. -- The rationale for this is that the experiments are of a specific sort to simply show the existence of a phenomena. As such, they are all preliminary. This is in contrast to experimentation which seeks to measure the already agreed upon phenomenon. This difference is important because of the "experimental" framing of the sentence. By saying that parapsychologists do "experiments" we are appealing to the tradition and techniques of science which are only adhered to in the meanest sense by parapsychologists.
  • Parapsychologists have generated a number of meta-analytical studies based on this research, which combine the data from previous experiments into one large data set. These statistical analyses have attracted much attention and debate. Removed. Simply stating that there are meta-analyses is a bizarre statement. I cannot for the life of me see why it is relevant except if someone is trying to promote the POV that parapsychology somehow does the cool things that other sciences do. However, this is irrelevant. Meta-analysis appear in almost any subject field that has enough "studies". It rarely shows up in the lead of articles on the subject. I see no explanation for why this should belong here especially if the point of these analyses is so inconclusive. Also, claiming that the meta-analyses have attracted "much attention and debate" needs to be adequately framed. Attracted much attention and debate compared to what? The individual analyses? Meta-analyses in medicine? Science that isn't so controversial? Where is all this attention and debate happening? I think the sentence borders precariously on original research, but removing the more sensationalist claims from it leaves us with a sentence that meta-analysis exists. So what? As I sad earlier, meta-analyses exist in many places but usually are not considered interesting enough to state that in the lead of the article.

These are just three edits I did to begin to address some of the issues I outlined above. People are welcome to comment here.

ScienceApologist 16:56, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I actually agree with your first point.
Second point? There was nothing wrong with what was there. This is the lead, the lead is supposed to outline what is contained in the article. It tells the reader which specific experiments are going to be discussed later in the article. And parapsychologist do experiments and they do them rigorously, whether you agree that parapsychological topics are worth studying or not.
If this is true, then you should be able to show a citation for someone outside of the parapsychology community saying that parapsychologists do rigorous experiments. ScienceApologist 18:58, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
"Yet parapsychologists use the rational language and rigorous methods of science. They have no time for charlatans and fantasists." From The Guardian Science section, 1 Sep 2005 Jamon y cheso 20:26, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Interesting article. Of course, this writer is not a reliable source for what makes a rigorous experiment and what doesn't make a rigorous experiment. You'll have to find a source for a scientist outside of parapsychology who makes the claim of rigor. Alcock is probably as close as you'll get, and as we see below, he's not exactly going along with this fantasy. ScienceApologist 20:32, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Ah, of course, a broadsheet science writer is no judge - how about Brian Josephson, Nobel prize winner for physics - will he do.Jamon y cheso 20:35, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Do you have a quote from Josephson about parapsychology experiments being rigorous? ScienceApologist 20:39, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
First of all, does a Nobel prize winner for physics count, in your book, as a reliable enough source for Wiki re what constitutes a rigorous experiment.Jamon y cheso 20:55, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Depends. For example, Linus Pauling's ideas that he had shown that vitamin C cured the common cold were roundly criticized and critiqued as being incorrect. He did good work in some areas and poor work in others. ScienceApologist 21:05, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
So what you mean is no source that says parapsychologists use rigorous methods (not even a Nobel prize winning physicist) will be reliable because you just know that the methods they use aren't rigorous and no source in the world trumps ScienceApologist's wisdom. Is that right? Is this really where we are?Jamon y cheso 21:10, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Nope. I said just find me a source that says parapsychologists use rigorous methods and we'll evaluate the statement from there. ScienceApologist 21:12, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
I already have - the Guardian science section above, and Susan Blackmore below.Jamon y cheso 21:14, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes, and I explained why it doesn't really qualify as a reliable source. So we look for another and begin again. ScienceApologist 23:15, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
I have already provided another, susan blackmore - a noted sceptic. And even your claim about the first source is wrong - the guardian science section is a perfectly reasonable source for a general point about scientific methodology. So we two perfectly good sources for the claim that parapsychology has used rigorous scientific research methods etc.Jamon y cheso (talk) 11:10, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Susan Blackmore is not a scientist. The journalist writing for the Guardian is also not a scientist. End of the road. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:23, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Susan Blackmore is/was a scientist every bit as much a Ray Hyman.LutherFlint (talk) 23:40, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
As pointed out just above, Dr Susan Blackmore was for many a years an academic psychologist with appropriate qualifications gained at appropriate universities. To claim she is not a scientist is just being silly.Jamon y cheso (talk) 23:44, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Meta-analyses in the lead

Third point? What?!?!?!? Several meta-analysis are referenced through-out the article and they are discussed at length in section on experiments and in the criticism section. Again, the lead is supposed to frame the rest of the article.

I'm going to let others weigh in before I even touch this. --Annalisa Ventola (Talk | Contribs) 17:36, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Also, most editors here have agreed to discuss controversial changes on the talk page before placing them in the article. If you want cooperation with this rewrite of yours, you might consider changing your approach. --Annalisa Ventola (Talk | Contribs) 17:46, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
This was done at the behest of Wikidudeman. People are allowed to edit as they see fit. There is nothing wrong with what I did. If you think otherwise, get an outside opinion. ScienceApologist 18:58, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree that you can edit as you see fit, but you are not going to get much cooperation from others with this approach. --Annalisa Ventola (Talk | Contribs) 19:30, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Edit three is particularly problematic. The comment above is correct: introductions summarize issues which are later elaborated in the article. Reason given for removing the text is a POV statement; the article's sentence itself was a neutral statement. There is a problem or two with the discussion about meta-analysis which follows in the article (direct quote of editorial not in "quotes", and muddled attribution of opinion in the statement), but the statement in the intro is npov and should be restored.Professor marginalia 18:36, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
There may be a way to discuss meta-analyses in the lead, but I don't see it. Obviously we cannot say that "These statistical analyses have attracted much attention and debate." because this is not a verifiable statement. ScienceApologist 18:58, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
The article goes on to describe the attention and debate, and these descriptions are well sourced. --Annalisa Ventola (Talk | Contribs) 19:30, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Yep, and I would say that they directly contradict the claim that "These statistical analyses have attracted much attention and debate." I would say rather that the attention and debate that they attracted was limited at best. ScienceApologist 19:42, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
We could say that "these statistical analyses have attracted much attention and debate in the pages of scientific journals" and cite with examples from the Psychological Bulletin BPS, and others. --Annalisa Ventola (Talk | Contribs) 19:39, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Nah, there wasn't that much attention and debate, only a small amount. ScienceApologist 19:42, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
We certainly do not need the word 'much' (or even 'small') in this lead, but just out of curiosity have you actually read any of these meta analyses and the correspondence that took place in these journals? --Annalisa Ventola (Talk | Contribs) 19:45, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Of course I have read them. I also think that claiming "attention" is a bit far-fetched given that parapsychology is generally ignored. ScienceApologist 19:52, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Really? Then you must've been up late last night because just yesterday you were denying that articles like these even existed. --Annalisa Ventola (Talk | Contribs) 20:01, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
You can cut out the personal attacks whenever you want. Fair warning: I'm keeping track of them and will file the appropriate complaint when the time is necessary. ScienceApologist 20:02, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Pointing out your own contradictions on this talk page is not a personal attack. --Annalisa Ventola (Talk | Contribs) 20:07, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Good luck with that defense. ScienceApologist 20:08, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
And good luck with your ArbCom case. --Annalisa Ventola (Talk | Contribs) 20:10, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, that's sweet of you. XOXOX ScienceApologist 20:11, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Resolve problem here by: Somebody take out the word "much" and restore the rest; everybody put all those spitwads back inside your desks and save it for recess. Professor marginalia 20:16, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
    I disagree with this resolution because the claim is that there is attention that has been received for these when I think, in fact, that the level of attention received is not notable enough for inclusion in the lead. ScienceApologist 20:18, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
That's one opinion. It's one sufficiently contradicted by the rest of the article, however.Professor marginalia 20:55, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Not from what I see. The rest of the article seems to indicate that little attention has been paid to anything relating to parapsychology in mainstream academia. There are a lot of sources which support this point as well. ScienceApologist 21:04, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I just happened to stumble across this thread. I have to agree with Annalisa here. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:15, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Attribution

I think that it is important that whenever we describe parapsychologial research that we always attribute it to whomever is describing it. For example, this diff shows that it's the parapsychologists who actually believe that their research involves such. We have evidence from other skeptical groups that this is not the case. ScienceApologist 17:00, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Parapsychologists aren't the only ones who say that their research involves quantitative and qualitative methodologies. Even skeptics will agree that parapsychologists use these methodologies, even if they don't find them particularly convincing. And I don't find a tautological definition of what a parapsychologist is to be particularly helpful for the reader, especially one that is unsourced. --Annalisa Ventola (Talk | Contribs) 17:41, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Do you have a citation for a skeptic saying that the methods used by parapsychologists are quantitative and qualitative in the same way as other sciences? ScienceApologist 18:53, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
We don't need a quotation from a skeptic in a skeptical magazine to affirm something that is noted in a number of peer reviewed sources etc., if you want to doubt this then you need a statement from someone claiming it's not true.Jamon y cheso 19:02, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
This is not an uncontroversial claim. Let me point out a few things:
  1. There is nothing except for quantitative and qualitative research. The two categories subsume every kind of research that exists. Therefore, commenting on the different methodologies as plainly like this is pandering to paranormalists looking for legitimacy. It is enough that we say parapsychologists do research.
  2. There are problems with the methodological assumptions that go into parapsychology before any research begins. By plainly stating research methodologies like this readers are likely to assume a tacit acceptance of the research program in the mainstream. For example, we would never say that a holocaust denier uses both "quantitative and qualitative" research. That kind of statement is clearly setting up an unneeded description that attempts to lend legitimacy.
ScienceApologist 19:07, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Jamon, consider reading the thread more closely before commenting. Annalisa claimed that "even skeptics will agree that parapsychologists use [quantitative and qualitative] methodologies." ScienceApologist doubts this and is asking for a citation. Antelan talk 19:09, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I gave an example of an attribution that I think would be acceptable. I encourage people to revert it if they disagree with it as per the WP:BRD cycle. ScienceApologist 19:12, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

The point is surely only meant to mean that PS research is not only quantitative and not only qualitative. To merely say "research" does not show this since it is consistent with one or the other or both. And, to answer Antelan, if SA's point is really that the claim is superfluous, as he seems to be saying now, then what difference would a skeptic saying it make.Jamon y cheso 19:13, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
I think the point really is to say that there are different kinds of parapsychology research. In fact, PA identifies two kinds: field work and laboratory work. They actually do not make the quantitative/qualitative distinction. ScienceApologist 19:18, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but many others do. So what exactly is your point?Jamon y cheso 19:19, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Point is, it's uncited right now. ScienceApologist 19:45, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Hrere's the least cited paragraph in the lead, I've marked afterwards the type of source I think should be supplied:
Parapsychology is a fringe science because it involves research that does not fit within standard theoretical models accepted by mainstream science.[mainstream science/philosophy of science source] Scientists such as psychologists Ray Hyman and James Alcock, among others, are critical of both the methodology used and the results obtained by parapsychology. [Skeptical source probably CSI would do] Skeptical researchers suggest that methodological flaws provide the best explanation for apparent experimental successes, rather than the anomalistic explanations offered by many parapsychologists. [Skeptical source, but also note the Hyman/Honorton joint communique in which Hyman says the opposite] Some critics have also argued that parapsychology crosses the line into pseudoscience.[3] [OK source as is] To date, no evidence has been accepted by the mainstream scientific community as establishing the existence of paranormal phenomena. [Mainstream science source - although this is little ore that a truism by equivocation, since a number of things hitherto regarded as paranormal have become mainstream]

Jamon y cheso 19:53, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

This essay by skeptic/psychologist James Alcock frames parapsychology as scientific enterprise, even if is his unconvinced by the results. However, I can support changing quantitative to 'laboratory work' and qualitative to 'field work', but only because these terms are more accessible to the general reader. --Annalisa Ventola (Talk | Contribs) 19:36, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't go that far: I would say that Alcock views parapsychology as the closest to a scientific enterprise, but YMMV. At least lab work and field work are reliably sourced. ScienceApologist 19:45, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Have you read the essay this quickly, or are you just making stuff up again? --Annalisa Ventola (Talk | Contribs) 19:46, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Alcock seems convinced that parapsychologists respect science and perhaps experiment in a mean sense, but he doesn't go as far as to say that they actually do science in the rigorous sense. ScienceApologist 19:51, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Well if you did read it, you must've skipped over page 2 where he says, "Thus, to the sceptical reader, I stress that these parapsychological writers are in our camp, the scientific camp." --Annalisa Ventola (Talk | Contribs) 19:54, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
No, I didn't miss this. I think that what Alcock is saying is that the parapsychological writers admire science. He criticizes their conclusions enough to convince me that he doesn't think their methodologies are sound. For example, Alcock says early on: "Arguably, the only significant differences that distinguish the proponents from the sceptics in this collection of articles are in terms of their a priori subjective weighings of the likelihood that psychic phenomena exist, which in turn may influence their evaluations of the adequacy of the research protocols that have been employed in parapsychological research and the quality of the data thus obtained."ScienceApologist 20:01, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't think that Alcock needs your interpretation. He didn't say that parapsychologists are the admirers of the scientific camp, he is saying that they are in the scientific camp. --Annalisa Ventola (Talk | Contribs) 20:04, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
So when he said "all share a deep respect for science" he was just whistling Dixie, I suppose. ScienceApologist 20:06, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Well, I'm sure he wasn't contradicting his statement on page 2. --Annalisa Ventola (Talk | Contribs) 20:08, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm sure he wasn't either. Rather I think he was simply stating that the "scientific camp" is comprised of those people who share a deep respect for science. As for whether or not parapsychologists are actually successful in doing science, that's something Alcock never directly says. In fact, he fairly well states up front that he disagrees with their conclusions that there are paranormal phenomena. ScienceApologist 20:10, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
He's not saying that they are unsuccessful at doing science...just unsuccessful at producing convincing results. --Annalisa Ventola (Talk | Contribs) 20:15, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Results are part of science. ScienceApologist 20:16, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Negative, positive, convincing, unconvincing, results are part of science.Jamon y cheso 20:18, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes, and failed quantitative experiment is still a quantitative experiment. --Annalisa Ventola (Talk | Contribs) 20:20, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Not when you report that the failure was actually a success. Coming to a conclusion unwarranted by your experiment is not science. ScienceApologist 20:21, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Determining whether or not scientist's conclusion are warranted is part of the process of science. Failing to convince some of your peers about the importance of your results does not make you unscientific. --Annalisa Ventola (Talk | Contribs) 20:27, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Right, so when one's conclusion is shown to be unwarranted, it is safe to say that that person was not conducting science. ScienceApologist 20:34, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Nor when you report success as failure, or hedge and hedge, or make people sign contracts etc. The whole point of the Honorton/Hyman joint statement was that the experiments were now sufficiently rigorous and sufficiently convincing that serious further study was needed. That is, they could no longer be explained away as the result of poor methodology etc., as Hyman is still noted in the lead as saying.Jamon y cheso 20:32, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
What? "Scientists such as psychologists Ray Hyman and James Alcock, among others, are critical of both the methodology used and the results obtained by parapsychology." Doesn't look like he's saying further study is needed. Looks like he's saying parapsychology is bunk.ScienceApologist 20:37, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes but that's only the lead in Wiki (not to be taken seriously). In his joint statement with Honorton (I'm sure you're familiar with it) they agree (as does Carl Sagan apparently) that ESP experiments have produced sufficiently replicable and convincing results as to demand further study.Jamon y cheso 20:43, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Here's what Susan Blackmore had to say about the results of a series of experiments that came out of the Honorton/Hyman joint statement:
"Admittedly they are impressive and deserve presentation to a wider audience than the readers of parapsychology journals. They are the series of experiments using the autoganzfeld - or fully automated ganzfeld system. This was designed to meet the "stringent standards" set by Hyman and Honorton (1986) in their joint communique-which ended the great Ganzfeld Debate. In this new paper Bem and Honorton claim that these "stringent standards" have been met - a view with which I widely concur." Jamon y cheso 20:51, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

(outdent)You are reinterpreting history to fit a very non-mainstream POV. The Honorton-Hyman debate set forth a number of ideas which were designed to explain what a "rigorous" experiment in ESP would entail. There is no indication that Hyman believes that these standards are met by current parapsychologists. Of course Bem and Honorton would disagree, but Hyman has actually opposed their claims of meeting the standards quite stridently, perhaps showing why it is inadvisable to ever issue joint statements with pseudoscience advocates. ScienceApologist 21:03, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Maybe, but in order to demonstrate the seriousness with which Honorton took his work he probably thought issuing a joint statement with a goalpost-moving pseudoscientist was a risk worth taking.Jamon y cheso 21:06, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
So what we have then is basically a point that Hyman doesn't think that parapsychologists are following the methodologies he believes are needed for reliable research. ScienceApologist 21:10, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
No, we have you saying that.Jamon y cheso 21:13, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
And the lead of this article too. So I guess I agree with the article on this point. ScienceApologist 21:14, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but there is no source, no reference, no citation - just the claim.Jamon y cheso 21:17, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
I see a source in the criticism section. ScienceApologist 23:14, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
There is no source for the part that this discussion was about. That is, there is a source for the claim that some critics have claimed parapsychology is pseudoscience, but none for the other claims in the paragraph. And since those claims are about a variety of things we need sources.Jamon y cheso (talk) 11:06, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
I see the source explaining it all. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:24, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:BRD

This is a FA. Using WP:BRD is unnecessarily disruptive and unjustified for initiating widesweeping changes given the FA context. It will leave the same kind of mess behind as a bull's redecoration of a china shop. FA is as solid a peer review process as exists at WP, hence considerable evidence already exists that the content is well supported in its current form. The burden to "identify areas of dispute" should fall on the editor proposing any big changes. Professor marginalia 20:46, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with this statement. In fact, in theory, someone can revert a change they think is problematic immediately thus maintaining the integrity of the FA page. For example, the edits I made don't seem to have caused the article to be destroyed. ScienceApologist 20:59, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
I guess we'll just have to see then. Professor marginalia 21:01, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Even though I've maintained the spirit of some of Science Apologist's changes in my recent edits, I do find his recent campaign to align this article with his point of view to be extremely disruptive. His disregard for the FA peer review process and the recent ArbCom decision on the status of parapsychology is alarming and will not be tolerated. The only reason that I did not revert his changes immediately is because I attempt to adhere to WP:1RR and wanted to give others some time to weigh in. --Annalisa Ventola (Talk | Contribs) 02:57, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
I think that some of SA's edits were helpful, as were some of yours. ScienceApologist's definition of parapsychologist is probably not necessary in the lead. At the same time, you far overstate the case of parapsychology in the United States, and you have selected rare exceptions in pointing out the very few parapsychological papers that have been published in mainstream journals. This is an FA, and that is all the more reason to continue clarifying and improving it. Antelan talk 03:35, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
I found some of SA's edits helpful too. I think that I might've originally introduced the terms 'quantitative and qualitative' in the lead, and I don't mind being reminded that there are more public-friendly terms that can be substituted in an article intended for general audiences, even if I can't agree with SA's rationale for doing so. I have not overstated the case of parapsychology in the United States in this article. However, on the talk page, SA has frequently denied that parapsychology exists in academia at all and has suggested that parapsychological research has been completely ignored by mainstream scientists. All it takes is one example to refute his wholesale assertions, and that's what I have done on the talk page. Parapsychology is tiny field at the margins of academia, and the situation in the US in particular is rather dismal. I won't deny that, but the article already does a good job of presenting this. SA is trying to shift a neutral article to his negative point of view, and that really shouldn't be tolerated, no matter one's particular perspective on parapsychological research. --Annalisa Ventola (Talk | Contribs) 04:03, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Sorry I wasn't more clear. This is the diff I was looking at, and here you overstate parapsychology's impact by selecting the few papers that have been published in the mainstream journals. These are the extreme exception to the rule; that you would highlight these in the lead is why I am saying you are overstating the case of parapsychology, especially within the United States. Antelan talk 04:50, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure how this diff demonstrates me overstating the case of parapsychology in the U.S. specifically. Perhaps you could clarify? (I'm confused because one of three papers I referenced was from a European journal.) When it comes to papers referenced in this diff, I limited the citations to only those that were already referenced in the article (since this is the lead), and only those citations that pertained to meta-analyses, since that is what the sentence specified. Personally, I find it unecessary for this statement in the lead to be referenced like this since the article that follows it is well sourced, but Science Apologist seems to be demanding it. If you think the statement stands alone without the references (as it did before SA arrived here) go ahead and remove them. --Annalisa Ventola (Talk | Contribs) 06:33, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm not saying that the refs are unnecessary - I'm saying that the statement itself is exaggerated and should be removed or substantially modified. I'm not commenting on Europe because I haven't looked into parapsychology there, but you are overstating it in the US, and the previous version of that paragraph is preferable. Antelan talk 06:48, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Which previous version? The one that had our consensus, or the one that SA modified? Either way, if you find my edits objectionable, go ahead an change them. ;-) --Annalisa Ventola (Talk | Contribs) 06:51, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
If you click the diff above, I think that the specific portion of the paragraph that we're discussing (i.e., not the changes you made in the first paragraph) could/should be changed back to read more like the "previous" part of the diff. If these sentences have been substantially since I last checked, then nevermind this. Antelan talk 07:26, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Indent break. I'm sorry, but I don't see where we quantify parapsychology in the US. I may just be missing it. Could you give me that quote? ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 07:17, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Conflict of interest discussion

I have suggested that Analisa Ventola be restricted from editing in article space at this article due to her obvious conflict of interest. The discussion is here. -- ScienceApologist (talk) 17:17, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

There is no blanket ban rule in WP:COI. Editors whose COI interferes with editing so that their self-interest conflicts with the policies and aims of WP may be banned, but there is no policy to ban any editor preemptively. WP content disputes should be settled with refs, not with selectively evicting some of the editors. -- Professor marginalia (talk) 18:09, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
This is not about the content disputes. This is about a specific conflict of interest concern. As I said, I welcome her contributions on the talkpage, but I'm not at all pleased to see that she has been paid to promote parapsychology on the internet. -- ScienceApologist (talk) 19:02, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Paid to promote a topic and rewarded for accuracy on a topic are two different things. You're framing a grant or scholarhip award for accuracy as a reason to support restricting a user from participating in an article about a subject -- not an association, organization, or biography. WP:SCOIC doesn't even call for blocking from editing an article where there's a strict conflict of interest, much less a topical subject matter where they have a professional expertise. It's like asking someone who has an affiliation with the Republican National Committee not to participate in politics articles. It'd have more merit if this were the Parapsychological Association aritlce, and it's not. --Nealparr (talk to me) 19:13, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I have always been upfront about my interests and affiliations, as you can see by my user page. Science Apologist has not uncovered any information that I haven't volunteered myself at one point or another. The Skeptiko grant was awarded to me for my work on Public Parapsychology and it was only large enough for me to pay for some professional memberships and journal subscriptions and it was a one time thing. The only thing that I get paid to do regularly is teach little kids how to play the piano. My activities at Wikipedia are purely voluntary (see more here). --Annalisa Ventola (Talk | Contribs) 00:24, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Good, then as an official mouthpiece for PA, I hope you keep in mind that your edits look like they are acting on behalf of that organization. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:25, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
I've already explained that I am not an official mouthpiece for the PA at WP:COIN noticeboard. My blog is affiliated with the Center for Research on Consciousness and Anomalistic Psychology at Lund University. Not that it makes a difference either way, since my actions, whether it be here or at my blog are entirely self-directed. You have not shut me up with your little smear campaign. --Annalisa Ventola (Talk | Contribs) 23:28, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

COI banner

And now there is yet another big blazing banner across the page, go figure. Anyone else think ScienceApologist has been disruptive enough here? SA, you make great edits, and often, but here you're (even if by accident) tanking the article. Can you voluntarily leave it alone? And can we please get the big ugly banner off the FA article? Annalisa didn't create the article and more edits were made by others than by her. --Nealparr (talk to me) 00:56, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah-now the FA is sporting a new COI template like a shiny black eye. Only evidence for this concern so far is a single diff showing the editor removed a poorly formatted, trivial nothing self-published link, which anyone can see increased the overall quality of the "further reference" list. And these tactics aren't disruptive? What is really going on in here? That template needs to come down.Professor marginalia (talk) 01:03, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
What's really going on is an attempt to bring the article in line with NPOV. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:26, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
There's a difference between incorporating a balanced representation to achieve NPOV and rewriting the article in such a way as to convey a snooty "pinched nose" style put-down of the subject. I've found that editors with strong personal antipathies toward an article's subject oftentimes struggle recognizing that distinction. Professor marginalia (talk) 17:43, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Consensus editing

I don't see any reason why any substantial changes to the article can't be discussed on the talk page first, a consensus reached, and then implemented. This allows everyone to participate without disrupting the stability of the article itself, and recent editing without consensus has been disruptive. Discussing things on the talk page without editing the actual article allows people to point out things that may not have already been considered. For example, the recent use of a direct quote (no longer in the article). A consensus was formed months ago that direct quotes were counter productive, and we all agreed to avoid them as much as possible. Any one editor wishing to make substantial changes may not be aware that the various groups of editors have already addressed these things previously.

Some changes that people want (for example dumping "quantitative and qualitative research") aren't that bad, and as you can see by the current version, everyone's fine with those changes. Assuming that the wording in the previous version was chosen for a particular POV is just that, an assumption. I chose that wording myself months ago when I was trying to cut down on the bytes size of the article. It read something like blah, blah, blah, blah, basically a bunch of stuff that was experimental and other stuff that was survey approach, in other words "quantitative and qualitative", so I shortened it to save on byte size. It was purely to save space. There's nothing POV about it, and those types of assumptions are disruptive. By raising the point on the talk page first, there's an opportunity to point out why the choice was made and discuss alternatives.

I'm not going to participate in any wording choices or compromises for my own personal reasons (I'm tired), but I'll be more than happy to point out where in the history of developing this article wording choices were made, the compromises and consensuses reached, and why we developed it the way we did. Rather than just saying, "Oh it's all wrong and needs to be fixed," ask why choices were made. This article isn't just a featured article. It's a remarkable article that kicks Britannica's ass. --Nealparr (talk to me) 04:43, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

CoughCoughCoughCoughCoughCough. HakDo I hear an echo around here? ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 05:47, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

More explanation for edits

Here's the diff [9] and here's all the explanations.

Please comment where you see fit.

I love you all,

ScienceApologist (talk) 23:42, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I love you too. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 23:40, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Right back atcha, babe. XOXOXO. --Annalisa Ventola (Talk | Contribs) 00:34, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
General note: I personally prefer the itemization SA has provided. It helps editors decide which changes are the problem ones and which ones are improvements. --Nealparr (talk to me) 03:04, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes, this really helpful, thanks. --Annalisa Ventola (Talk | Contribs) 00:34, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

What methods are correctly used?

Parapsychological research involves a variety of methodologies, to Parapsychological research attempts to use a variety of methodologies,

Does parapsychology actually use the methodologies correctly or is it using them incorrectly? We have the parapsychologists themselves which claim that they do and then we have the skeptical associations and the various critical scientists like Hahn who say that they do not. So who do we believe? Neither. We cannot simply state that parapsychology involves a certain set of methodologies because doing so tends to insinuate that they are doing so properly. We can also not say that parapsychologists incorrectly use a variety of methodologies because that's also not NPOV. The only solution is to state that they try to use such methodologies and why they try to use them.

All that really follows the point about methodologies is "laboratory research and fieldwork". It seems kinda strange to say that this is somehow disputed. Are you really saying that parapsychologists only try to do research in a lab and in the field but that they're not really in a lab - or in the field for that matter.  ??? LutherFlint (talk) 00:02, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
"Attempts" is such an off-putting word that implies the negative. Like Luther said, it's only here to demonstrate that it occurs in the lab and in the field. Why not condense the line to "Parapsychological research involves laboratory research and fieldwork, which is conducted in association with a number of universities and privately funded laboratories around the world" and avoid the word that is bound to cause problems. (Note that I changed "conducted at" to "in association with". This is because fieldwork probably doesn't occur on-campus.) --Nealparr (talk to me) 01:50, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
"Attempts" is not a good edit. Legitimate methods can be used improperly in any context, including engineering, science, medicine, statistics. Editors shouldn't demean their reader's intelligence hand holding them like toddlers throughout the article. Professor marginalia (talk) 18:03, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
I have to agree with the responders above. --Annalisa Ventola (Talk | Contribs) 23:33, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Please, folks. Saying something "involves" a variety of methods is pretty weasly (just much as "attempts to use" is). I think that two things are important in this sentence:

  1. Parapsychology adopts methodologies
  2. The adoption of these methodologies has been subject to dubious consideration by skeptics.

That's what's notable about the methodologies of parapsychologists. I'm willing to look a different wordings, but the current sentence is just so mealy-mouthed as to not convey either of those two points efficiently.

ScienceApologist (talk) 01:21, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Why do parapsychologists use these methods?

which is conducted at a number of universities and privately funded laboratories around the world. to to determine whether or not psi phenomena can be measured. Parapsychology has been conducted at a number of universities and privately funded laboratories around the world.

Parapsychology does research with a particular goal in mind. They do not simply do any and all research that utilize the methods we mention. Rather they use the methods to attempt to see whether or not psi exists. This is an important point for the reader because it frames the research appropriately.

Seems to me to be a pedantic and wholly unnecessary point. It's about as obvious as can be from the article what the point of the research is.LutherFlint (talk) 00:05, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Agree. The first two lines describe what they do. This isn't really necessary as it's repetitive. --Nealparr (talk to me) 01:55, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Can't see in what way it should isolate the research performed to purely "measuring" the phenomenon. Some of the criticism for example dwells on the problem of "reproducible" outcomes, or properly ruling out other causes to explain the phenomenon.Professor marginalia (talk) 18:09, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Again, in agreement with the responders. --Annalisa Ventola (Talk | Contribs) 23:36, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I think that specificity is extremely important here. Reading the sentence as is, it isn't at all clear what the goal of parapsychology research is. The first paragraph says that parapsychologists call a set of phenomena "psi", but then we jump immediately to saying what the methods of parapsychologists are. It is important to be clear that these methods are used for one purpose only. It's more than just being pedantic, it's clear that parapsychologists simply are not interested in designing research that observes for observation sake.

Take ethnographic research in comparison. The point of many ethnographic studies is to observe without intending to look for any given phenomena. Ethnographers use certain methods to conduct their observations, and the methods themselves are used with the idea that the results which are obtained will lead the researcher to decide what phenomena are important. This is a different way of doing research than someone who starts out with something that they want to test and then go about using techniques to test it. Observation versus experimentation is basically what we're talking about: parapsychologists are experimenters and not observers in the strict sense. However both the methodologies mentioned in this sentence can be used either for experimentation or for pure observation.

ScienceApologist (talk) 01:18, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

What appears in journals, research or results?

Such research usually appears to Results of such research usually appear in

It is clear that "research" per se cannot appear in journals. What appears in journals is the result of research.

Virtually everywhere people speak of "publishing research". Your point here seems rather pedantic.LutherFlint (talk) 23:48, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Six of one, half-a-dozen of another. I don't have a problem with it. --Nealparr (talk to me) 01:56, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Ditto. Professor marginalia (talk) 18:12, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Fine. --Annalisa Ventola (Talk | Contribs) 23:36, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Note: This appears to have consensus, any objections? --Nealparr (talk to me) 03:27, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I think that people usually speak of publishing the results of their research when they are being exacting in their wording. Think of this as a simple copy-edit. ScienceApologist (talk) 01:26, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

How much was in other journals, and what are the other journals?

though research articles on parapsychological topics have appeared in journals such as Psychological Bulletin, Foundations of Physics, and the British Journal of Psychology. to though a few research articles on parapsychological topics have appeared in mainstream scientific journals such as Psychological Bulletin, Foundations of Physics, and the British Journal of Psychology.

Here's the issue, there simply have not been very many mainstream publications on parapsychology in mainstream journals. This is verified by parapsychologists themselves who decry their marginalization. So it is important we qualify that there are fewer publications in mainstream journals as opposed to the specialized journals.

What is more, it is important we let the reader know what kind of journals the Psychological Bulletin, Foundations of Physics, and the British Journal of Psychology are. Letting them know they are mainstream scientific journals allows them to understand why they are mentioned.

Re the first point, the article already made this clear by context. That is, by saying such research "usually" appears in specialised journals "although" research has also appeared elsewhere, it is perfectly clear what the norm is. To make an issue of such a clear contrast seems like pedantry. Second point seems OK.LutherFlint (talk) 00:25, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
I think the second point is an improvement, and I don't have any major objection to the first point, though I do have one comment. I'd personally change "though a few..." to "and on occasion..." because on these occasions it is noteworthy that mainstream science considered the research worthy of discussion. It's not an "although". It's an "occasion" worthy of note. "On occasion" still demonstrates the marginalization in accord with the rest of the article, because it means that it is not the norm. Because it's not the norm, it's all the more noteworthy and deserves more than a "though a few". --Nealparr (talk to me) 03:13, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
On occasion is best, avoiding editorial quibbling about how many exactly qualify as "a few". These journals do not qualify in my mind as "mainstream", aren't they academically prestigious pubs written for professional peers, not the "mainstream"? The wl mainstream is really bad--takes reader to a disambig page where none of the choices apply in the context intended here. Professor marginalia (talk) 18:21, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
There are more than 'a few' mainstream publications, even if we're only citing a few, so I have to agree that 'on occassion' is a better way to go. --Annalisa Ventola (Talk | Contribs) 23:39, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Note: This seems to have consensus, with a change of "few" to "on occasion", any objections? --Nealparr (talk to me) 03:28, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

None here. ScienceApologist (talk) 01:13, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Describing meta-analyses

Parapsychologists have generated a number of meta-analytical studies based on this research, which combine the data from previous experiments into one large data set. to Parapsychologists also have synthesized meta-analytical studies based on their research that combine the results of previous published experiments.

A few issues. In the field, a meta-analysis isn't generated, it's synthesized. This is an important distinction because meta-analyses involve the creation of no new data. They are essentially fancy reviews. More than this, the "data" isn't combined in the sense that data that is collected under different conditions has to be analyzed differently. Instead what is combined in a meta-analysis are results. Also, meta-analyses do not generate meaningful data sets but rather present a variety of results in singular presentations. To say that the data gets combined is a misnomer.

If it's "synthesized" then write "synthesized" rather than "written" surely!LutherFlint (talk) 00:10, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Six of one, half-a-dozen of another. I don't have a problem with it. --Nealparr (talk to me) 03:14, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Meta-analysis generate study outcomes, I would say. Meta-analysis studies are generated in the same sense computer programs or epidemiologists generate information. Meta-analysis is a carefully designed study that uses disparate data sets together in a statistical "simulation" of sorts, looking for significant effect measures by simulating a sufficiently large data set statistically. Results of diverse published studies are statistically recalculated to find approximate probable outcomes of a given effect or dependent variable from a larger yet statistically proportional data set. So the best definition is something between the two edits suggested so far. The meta-analysis does measure outcomes of a simulated large data set. They don't simply combine the results or the data (and in many cases at least the statisticians do work with the raw data sets). The key is that the meta-analysis uses the disparate data elements to create a simulation of an actual outcome study by "massaging" the disparate data into properly proportional statistical homogeneity to simulate a suitably large data set.Professor marginalia (talk) 19:24, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Overall this edit is an improvement, but 'written' and 'their' are misleading words in this context. Meta-analysis involves more than just writing, and parapsychologists don't only do meta-analyses on their own work. Sometimes they look at the work of others. --Annalisa Ventola (Talk | Contribs) 23:46, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Do you have any citation of a meta-analysis in parapsychology that used the work of someone who wasn't a parapsychologist? ScienceApologist (talk) 01:11, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Also, I changed from "written" to "synthesized" above. ScienceApologist (talk) 01:12, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Statistics?

Several of these statistical analyses to Several of these analyses.

Meta-analyses are not on the whole statistics but are rather compilations. Statistics requires a cleaned, controlled sample. By definition, a meta-analysis cannot do this. If a person who does a meta-analysis claims that their analysis is "statistical" they are either being careless in their wording or are seriously misguided as to how to do statistics.

Here, from the website called Evidence Based Medicine, "Meta-analysis is a statistical technique..." and check out the first two word of the wiki article - meta-analysis. LutherFlint (talk) 23:54, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Nothing wrong with saying statstical here. --Nealparr (talk to me) 02:55, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Meta-analyses are just about completely statistical, but there's a judgment "art" involved to defining its scope and setting protocols etc. Professor marginalia (talk) 19:33, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
As there is in all forms of statistical analysis (at what level should you set alpha, etc.). Antelan talk 23:32, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Again, agree with the responders. Nothing wrong with this particular adjective. --Annalisa Ventola (Talk | Contribs) 23:53, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Here's the problem: the appeal to "statistical analyses" seems a bit disingenuous given the content of many of these meta-analyses. In particular, a few of the meta-analyses were criticized by certain "usual suspects" as having poorly indicated priors. In general, the way a statistical analysis proceeds is one must first indicate the sample size, the population, and the methodological priors before any sort of application of central-limit theorem, significance test, or probabilistic statements can be made. When one does a meta-analysis, the hope is to eliminate the parts of each prior analysis that are incompatible with a synthesis. This isn't statistics, per se but is rather an amalgamation. Simply calling these analyses "statistical" misleads the reader into thinking that they are something like demography or population studies rather than artificial constructions. ScienceApologist (talk) 01:11, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Psiology

Following debate and discussion at the above AfD, the article Psiology now redirects to this article. Similarly, Talk:Psiology redirects to this page. Cheers, Anthøny 17:13, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Quotes

I see that a couple of editors have added a quote by Sam Harris to the Parapsychology Today section. Although it is a very nice quote (and one which I find to be personally agreeable), I am removing it from the article. When drafting the Parapsychology article, a number of editors from a variety of perspectives agreed to avoid the use of quotes because they tend to encourage criticism-and-response editing, which can destablize articles on controversial subjects. I think that we should maintain this strategy. --Annalisa Ventola (Talk | Contribs) 00:35, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Parapsychology/Archive_12&oldid=1159846421"