Talk:Parapsychology/Archive 14

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

→

Dubious

Article says "Though recognized as a legitimate scientific field by the American Association for the Advancement of Science, active parapsychologists have admitted difficulty in getting scientists to accept their research" and offers as a reference this website which says "Parapsychological Association (PA). The PA is an international professional society founded in 1957 and elected an affiliate of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in 1969". What the article claims, therefore, is not in the reference given! It's misinformation and should be deleted unless properly cited in a real reference. NerdyNSK (talk) 14:12, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

To explain: The article claims that the field of parapsychology is considered a legitimate scientific field by the AAAS, but the reference says that an organisation about parapsychology has been elected as an affiliate of the AAAS. Field and organisation are two different things, and the status of affiliate may not mean much. NerdyNSK (talk) 14:13, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely correct. I removed it. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 14:41, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

First sentence

The first sentence of the lede currently reads: 'Parapsychology (from the Greek: παρά para, "alongside" + psychology) is the study of paranormal phenomena including extrasensory perception,' etc. 'The study of paranormal phenomena', without any qualifiers, implies the existence of such phenomena. It like saying 'the study of fairies' or 'the study of the Loch Ness monster'. There should be a qualifier in the first sentence to make it clear that the 'phenomena' under study are not accepted to exist by scientific consensus. It is not adequately clear in the first sentence that this is a fringe activity. Some readers will incorrectly take the first sentence to mean that such phenomena are believed to exist by the scientific community at large, so the first sentence is currently misleading. It may only take the addition of one word to fix this. I found the featuring of this article in this state to be disappointing. Ryan Paddy (talk) 20:18, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

This was discussed at length during the development of the article and even went to arbitration. The finding of ArbCom was as follows:

Language in the introduction of an article may serve to frame the subject thus defining the epistemological status. Examples include "mythical", "fictional", "a belief", and in the present case "paranormal", "psychic", "new age", "occult", "channeling". or "parapsychological researcher". "UFO", "Bigfoot", "Yeti", "alien abduction", and "crop circle" serve the same function. It should not be necessary in the case of an adequately framed article to add more, for example to describe Jeane Dixon as a psychic who appeared on TV says it all. "Purported psychic" or "self-described psychic" adds nothing.[1]

Hope this helps! --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 20:21, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Part of the problem is the word "phenomenon" which in science means something very different than it does in regular parlance. I changed it to simply "the study of the paranormal" in the interest of careful parsing and NPOV. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:30, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't convinced that the use of "phenomenon" was a problem, but it does read a lot easier now as just "the study of the paranormal". It does go some way to reduce the implication of definite existence too, as "paranormal" now sticks out as the subject of the sentence. However, I do still have the concern below. Ryan Paddy (talk) 23:37, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, that's an interesting arbitration. I think I've put my finger on the problem now. The opening sentence is misleading in its use of the word "study". You can only study something that definitely exists. "The study of paranormal phenomena" implies the proven existence of such phenomena, which contradicts its modern epistemological status. What paranormal researchers really do is search for the paranormal, not study it. Ryan Paddy (talk) 23:19, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

The arbitration says that parapsychology should not be conflated with sensational beliefs about the paranormal. This article currently describes parapsychology as the study of the paranormal, without restriction. The paranormal article includes UFOs, Yeti, etc. If parapsychology is specifically investigation of the existence of psychics, why is it being over-generalised in the lede by conflating it with investigation of all paranormal? Ryan Paddy (talk) 00:14, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

It used to say "certain types of paranormal phenomena" but things change over time (see Parapsychology#Scope). I support changing "study of" to "search for" and adding "certain types" back in. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 00:30, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Correction, because -ology means "study of" and that is it's technical definition, it should say "involves the search for" rather than "is the search for"... "Parapsychology involves the search for certain types of paranormal phenomena". --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 00:40, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Is parapsychology specifically the search for psychic phenomena, and not any other kind of paranormal? If so the introduction could say that, and not mention the paranormal in general. Ryan Paddy (talk) 00:53, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Academic parapsychology has a narrow scope, yes. It only concerns itself with what they consider to be "psi" (basically psychic and survival of death related phenomena -- like ghosts and reincarnation -- but nothing at all concerning UFOs, Bigfoot, etc.). The intro was condensed in WP:SUMMARY-style after some editors felt it was too long to be compatible with WP:LEAD, but if you think it needs more clarification I'm not opposed to that. I'm actually retired from the article, and just came back today because this is the first time it's made it to the front page (personal celebration). --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 00:58, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Simply adding "certain types of" before the "including..." would clarify it greatly I think. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 01:01, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's a big mistake to start the sentence 'parapsychology involves'; an lead sentence should begin 'parapsychology is. I also think the search for is overly cautious. I suggest Parapsychology...is scientific research into certain types... etc.--nemonoman (talk) 01:25, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Simpler wording is preferable. I have edited to "Parapsychology is the search for psychic phenomena." For this purpose "is" is fine, as we are defining the term. There is no need to say that it's the search for only certain types of paranormal phenomena, and give a shopping list of examples, when it is specifically the search for psychic phenonomena. Just use the most precise term and drop the rest. Ryan Paddy (talk) 04:48, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Except that it's not specifically the search for psychic phenomena. It's also the study of purported phenomena related to Survivalism (life after death) like ghosts, reincarnation, near death experiences, etc. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 05:22, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, good point. This is so much better, I wish this editing had happened before it was featured. I'd never seen such an embarressing non-April-Fools feature article. Ryan Paddy (talk) 06:38, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I think that characterization is a little overboard. I didn't feel the need to get into it before, but when you call it "embarrassing", as one of the primary writers here let me point out where you're wrong. You started the discussion saying we need to "make it clear that the 'phenomena' under study are not accepted to exist by scientific consensus". "Paranormal" is usually defined as "not explained by science" or "outside the laws of science" or in some similar contrast-to-scientific-consensus way. Paranormal is the qualifier. Skeptics and debunkers say "paranormal phenomena" all the time with no additional qualifiers, simply because paranormal itself essentially means "not accepted by science". I'm sorry you feel it is "embarrassing", but you could spend some more time thinking about the word "paranormal" before coming to that conclusion. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 16:00, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

In fact, "paranormal" is so defined as "not accepted by science", Richard Dawkins came up with "perinormal" to describe things that could end up as accepted by science. If accepted by science, Dawkins says, the phenomena would no longer be properly labeled as "paranormal" and is thus "perinormal" (in the vicinity of normal). Dawkins didn't use this example, but I would say lucid dreaming is an example of perinormal phenomena. The early research on lucid dreaming was done by parapsychologists such as Keith Hearne. Lucid dreaming has subsequently been researched scientifically, and its existence is now well established. It went from not accepted in science (paranormal) to accepted in science (perinormal). Paranormal is a more than adequate qualifier to say "things not recognized by scientific consensus". The article was in no way embarrassing to Wikipedia. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 18:37, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I've changed to 'scientific study' as per above comment. "Search" is an EXTREMELY loose term. "Parapsychology" differs from the "Ghost Hunters" TV show because it attempts to apply scientific methods to its investigations, and to find ways to measure and where possible replicate the phenomena. Whether they are studying real stuff is not the question. They're not 'searching' for them, they're measuring phenomena and suggesting theoretical constructs about those phenomena. The grounding in a scientific method is what gets the scientists enough respect to join the AAAS, while their conclusions are not necessarily accepted.--nemonoman (talk) 11:57, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Everybody here knows that "paranormal" means "not accepted by science", but many readers will not. That's why the form of the writing was embarressing, because people who just don't know whether paranormal activity is a scientifically proven fact would read this for that information, and immediately fail to be informed, defeating the purpose of an encyclopedia article on the topic. "Paranormal" is not a sufficient qualifier for the lay reader, the article should be informative to people who don't know the situation, that's the point. Likewise "scientific study" implies existence. "Scientific search for" would be fine. Parapsychology can use accepted scientific means, it's the lack of confirmed existence of the "subject of study" that needs to be made clear in this encyclopedia article, the fact that they are looking for it but haven't found anything that's been accepted by the scientific community as adequate evidence of its existence. Ryan Paddy (talk) 20:42, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

There's two issues you're addressing in your comment, so let me start by making it clear that I'm only talking about "paranormal" being an adequate qualifier. You said everyone here knows that paranormal means not accepted by science, but many readers won't, and for that reason it's "embarrasing writing". I wholeheartedly disagree. Many may not know what "Ganzfeld experiment" means (or any of the other terms used), but there's a blue link to the article on it for those who don't. Further, when writing it, we wrote all over the article that no evidence for paranormal phenomena has been accepted by any scientific consensus. We don't need to talk down to readers and assume they're unintelligent, hand hold them, or spoonfeed them, all of that would be embarrassing writing. The article makes it very clear that nothing paranormal is accepted by science.

In any case, I'm not here to convince you that it's adequate. I took issue with you calling it embarrassing writing. I don't care what the actual article says. I'm addressing what you said about my writing style. You're entitled to your critique, but your argument is baseless in my opinion. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 21:48, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Apologies for any offense caused. My meaning was that I was personally embarressed that Wikipedia, a project I have some respect for, would feature a page in a state that I personally found potentially misleading. My understanding is not based on the ideal reader, who reads the whole article (or even the whole lede) and follows links and reads those, but the casual reader who sees an item being featured on the front page, reads the first couple of sentences, potentially gets the wrong idea, and moves on. I wouldn't want to talk down to anyone, but I see no reason the article can't be crystal clear. While I'm genuine sorry that you're offended, you may want to examine your attitude towards your contribution and avoid taking critical comments about the writing so personally. Nobody WP:OWNs an article, and constructive criticism involves calling a spade a WP:SPADE without tiptoeing around the sensitivities of individual editors about the quality of their contributions. I was commenting on the article, not on the contributors. Ryan Paddy (talk) 23:58, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not owning the article. You can write whatever you'd like to. I'm retired from it. I was responding to comments about what I wrote. If it's not something I contributed, I don't personally care (like the debate over "search for" and "study of"). When it is something I wrote, I take the time to explain why it was written that way. I wasn't offended by your comment, and please don't think I thought it was a personal attack or anything, I just think you're wrong is all : ) --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 01:31, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Vadalisum

Don't you think that we should semi-protect this page? At least for today? It seems that a number of unregistered users (or on user using multiple IP's) is vandalising this page calling themself "the penis bandit". Just look at todays contrabutions. Most of them are spam and undo's. -- InfamousAmos (talk) 22:31, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Normally, it's a good idea to keep a page un-protected unless the vandalism gets out-of-control. Mainpage featuring gives anonymous users a chance to see great Wikipedia articles and improve them. If the vandalism gets too much to handle, then by all means request page protection, but right now it looks more-or-less manageable to me. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:33, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

(ec)It's a bit late now as there'll be anew article on the mainpage in a few hours. Also, articles featured on the mainpage are very rarely protected. Having it open to all is intended to encourage new users to edit, and the vandalism hasn't been on a scale that it's been impossible to keep up with. Nev1 (talk) 22:36, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Your probobly right. Its just a little annoying. --InfamousAmos (talk) 22:38, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid so, but on the upside the worst of it will be over soon. Although it's worth keeping an eye on the article as there'll be a (less prominent) link on the mainpage for the next three days. Nev1 (talk) 22:44, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Anyone else feel that it is starting to get out of hand yet? [2] --InfamousAmos (talk) 23:12, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

It's always like this on main page articles. Check out yesterday's and I'm sure you'll find the same activity. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 00:34, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I know. What I was sugessting was that someone semi-protect it for a few days. Even now after the featured article has been changed, it is still being vandalised. --InfamousAmos (talk) 00:39, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not arguing against protection, but I think the reason main page articles aren't protected despite being prone to vandalism is because Wikipedia wants to demonstrate that it is self-correcting against vandalism. If the page is just locked down, it sends the wrong message. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 00:43, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah. I see... Well I will request semi-protection and let someone decide if they want to semi-protect it or not.--InfamousAmos (talk)

Just an update to let you know that the request for full protection was declined (might have stood a better chance had it been semi) and that Parapsychology is no longer today's featured article. Nev1 (talk) 00:52, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I've noticed :P . But it seems to have quieted down anyway. Lets just leave it alone. --InfamousAmos (talk) 01:12, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Results?

The article contains discussion on Criticism and Fraud, but has no discussion of results. Could someone add results of well-known experiments in parapsychology, whether or not those results support the various hypotheses? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.248.107.194 (talk) 17:38, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

The results of experiments seems to be discussed under each type of experiment in the "Experimental research" section. It might be nice to have a summary of what the approximate nature of the results are, somewhere. From what is written under the various experiments, its seems that the "evidence of psi" results could be summarised as very slight statistical effects that critics suggest are the result of errors in analysis. Ryan Paddy (talk) 02:52, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

"Search" as opposed to "study" in Lead Sentence

To say "parapsychology is the search..." is not MERELY non-neutral POV, it is inherently DEMEANING. This lead is comparable to saying "Evolution is the belief that..."

The word is so freighted and suggestive, it denigrates what those scientists are studying by saying that what they are measuring actually doesn't exist, that are deluded in saying that they are measuring things, and that they are still searching for something to measure. That is not true.

Their measurements are REAL, the phenomona they measure are measurable. This is what distinguishes Parapsychology from Spiritualism.

One may reasonably NOT draw the same conclusions about causality, etc., as most parapsychologists draw. The article is careful to present a balanced view of what phenomena and events are being studied and measured, and the conclusions being drawn. Whether those measurements are adequate to support the conclusions, or if they suggest any proof at all is left to the reader. This is another aspect of good science.

I am restoring "study". --nemonoman (talk) 22:08, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

You're right. If people are correctly warned about the general status (not accepted, sometimes denigrated as pseudoscience) of the field, there is no problem with using a correct definition. People are far too jumpy about how a thing sounds in small sentences. Look at the lead overall, which is the least you can expect of our readers, and it is NPOV. You could also have the original which was "Parapsychology (from the Greek: παρά para, "alongside" + psychology) is the study of ostensibly paranormal events including extrasensory perception, psychokinesis, and survival of consciousness after death." The current one is simple, and likely better. However, you are correct that "search for" is controversial, as many parapsychologists have moved on from proof studies and are focused on theory. Calling it "scientific" is not really controversial outside Wikipedia itself (James Randi calls it scientific). Saying "psychic phenomena" does not indicate they are real, as it is merely the common term, and "psychic" is linked. It's fine, and the real reason it's fine is that you can't reasonably try for completely NPOV sentences, but you can manage a NPOV lead. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 23:59, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing demeaning about saying that parapsychologists "search for" psychic phenomena. That is what they do, just as SETI "searches for" alien life. Reading articles about parapsychology, the vast emphasis is on evidence of existence, not on explanation. The scientific consensus is that such phenomena have not been evidenced. Therefore it is most appropriate for a Wikipedia article to discuss of the "search for" such phenomena. It is unbalanced for an article to use wording that implies their existence, when other wording that makes it clear that the scientific concensus on the facts is otherwise. "Search for" achieves maximum clarity regarding the scientific consensus, which is the touchstone for questions of scientific fact on Wikipedia. Ryan Paddy (talk) 00:11, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

There is no "scientific consensus" in this case, as such a consensus is a positive thing. What you can say is that they do not accept the evidence. I'm glad at least that you know something about the subject (: As far as "search for," that is the history, but it is not the present. "Search for" assumes absolutely that, like SETI, nothing has been found, and that is contrary to the view in the field: it's controversial, thus should not be stated absolutely by WP. BTW, WP does not use scientific consensus as a basis for statements of fact. I don't know where you got that. Why not go back to the original way it was stated? That was NPOV to all concerned. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 00:23, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

There is certainly a scientific consensus in the sense linked and sourced in the article, that "The scientific community has not accepted evidence of the existence of the paranormal." In a fringe topic such as this, the fringe view that a phenomenon exists should not unduly weight the wording of the article towards a misleading impression. You cannot imply that the fringe view that something exists is true, that would be an unwarrented promotion of that fringe view. Fringe assertions must only be made explicitly, not in subtext. "Search for" only implies that the existence of such phenomena is a fringe view, which is the case. The original way it was stated was unneccessarily wordy, and had exactly the same issue regarding the illogicallity of scientific "study of" a phenomenon that is not accepted to have been evidenced to exist by the scientific community. Ryan Paddy (talk) 01:43, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

And your way of putting it makes a controversial claim as well. So make it NPOV. They are no longer searching to a great extent. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 02:03, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

The idea that "they are no longer searching" because they have found it, is a fringe concept. That they have not found evidence considered suitable by the scientific community is not contraversial. They are still searching for such information. Adding "ostensible" is superfluous, as all psychic/life after death are considered intrinsicly ostensible on Wikipedia, see ruling in previous discussion section. Ryan Paddy (talk) 05:21, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Ostensible is there because if it isn't there someone will put in an equivalent word, only a POV one like "purported" (but if you want to take it out with the caveat that you'll put it back if someone tries a different kind of word, fine). As I say, parapsychologists are to a large extent moving on from proof-oriented studies, and that is not searching. The word "searching" more than implies that they have found nothing, which is controversial. Therefore, to remain NPOV we word it to not take sides: there are plenty of such wordings we can use. I'm certainly open to other wordings. I think your idea to simplify is good in general, as long as the lead can remain NPOV. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 05:31, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

At best they are studying that which they believe they have found, but which mainstream scientists believe are illusions and/or delusions. -- Fyslee / talk 05:41, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

True fyslee. Not disputing that. I'm just saying that what we think of it is not relevant, and we should phrase it so that, as Jimbo has said, both a skeptic and a parapsychologist could come here and not have an objection. I believe the current wording does that. Other wordings could do the same. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 05:55, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure where Jimbo says that, but a truly NPOV article will offend both sides ;-) -- Fyslee / talk 05:58, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah (: In some respects. But they ought to be able to agree on the basics of the lead if proper attribution is used. Anyway, here is the quote, and note he's talking about fringe ideas within mainstream articles, not articles on fringe ideas- that's important:

[...] Usually, mainstream and minority views are treated in the
main article, with the mainstream view typically getting a bit more ink, but the minority view presented in such a fashion that both sides could agree to it. Singular views can be moved to a separate page and
identified (disclaimed) as such, or in some cases omitted altogether. [3]

——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 06:28, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Good edit, Ryan. Don't really see why one would seperate so strictly but if you like it better it's fine with me. But I must note that that was not "positive" information, simply information. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 06:37, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Having the first paragraph define parapsychology and outline what its proponents do, and then the second paragraph characterise the opposition to it, makes the lede much more readable. It's easier for readers to take in a block of aligned information than to read a paragraph that cuts back and forth between somewhat contradictory statements. This approach also removes the temptation for editors to qualify every single sentence with a point of view from the other perspective, which leads to particularly unreadable prose. Ryan Paddy (talk) 19:28, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed- I think so too, and for the same reasons, but many people have argued against it in the past. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 19:41, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Note to Ryan Paddy (talk): Please do not insert your POV about the VALIDITY of parapsychology's theories by using the word SEARCH to describe Parapsychology. Parapyschologists are mostly NOT searching. They are MOSTLY experimenting. They are creating hypotheses, developing controlled methodologies, measuring and identifying results, drawing conclusions and reporting them. That is science, even if applied to a doubtful subject. 2 sentences later, the following paragraph says, in effect "Parapsychologists are delusional and parapsychology is crap". I'm sorry if that you are not satisfied that paragraph isn't the lead, but do us all the courtesy of acknowledging the EXISTENCE of Parapyschology, even if you don't approve of it.

Your continuing insistence is nearing on a 3RR situation.--nemonoman (talk) 20:16, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

PS: Your removal of paranormal as redundant is a gift of better writing and blessing to readers everywhere.. Thanks for that change.--nemonoman (talk) 20:30, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

The phrasing "study of psychic abilities" implies the known existence of such things, when evidence of that existence is not accepted by the scientific community. This point, which I have made repeatedly in talk, has not been adequately addressed, which is why I continue to edit it. You mistake my intent, I have no problem with the existence of the field. My intent is to ensure that the fringe view that such abilities exist is not promoted in the subtext, as per WP:FRINGE "Unwarranted promotion of fringe theories". Ryan Paddy (talk) 20:32, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Olive branch: What we came up with before at one point, that seemed to satisfy all involved, was the word "ostensibly"[4] (appearing as). It's a word even parapsychologists can agree on, as they use it in their frequently asked questions to note that it appears to be psychic, but may just be mundane phenomena. James Randi agrees that it appears to be spoon bending, but like all magic tricks it's really something else. It's a mutally agreeable word. It looks paranormal. It [is/isn't] actually paranormal. Like astrologers look at the same heavens as astronomers do and draw vastly different conclusions, they're still looking at something. Parapsychologists look at the results of trials, real data, real numbers, real events, and just happen to draw conclusions that most scientists don't agree with. There's still something being looked at. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 20:47, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm in full argreement with ...study of ostensibly... if it will calm things down.--nemonoman (talk) 20:53, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Neal, didn't you previously point me to a ArbCom ruling saying that qualifiers for words like "psychic" shouldn't be used? Is this perhaps a special case? Ryan Paddy (talk) 22:30, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

The ArbCom said they weren't necessary, and I totally agree. But Wikipedia works off consensus, which in part deals with compromise. A lot of the discussion in ArbCom concerning qualifiers revolved around those that are listed in the WP:WTA as giving bias, like "claim" and "purported" or other dubious-intending synonymns, implying a point of view. Words like "ostensibly" or "apparent" aren't so loaded, and aren't WTAs. Again, like the ArbCom, I don't feel any qualifier beyond "paranormal" is necessary. But the finding wasn't a restriction, it was a suggestion. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 22:37, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree that in this instance some sort of clarity is needed that the research into this subject may be scientific but whether the subject actually exists is extremely doubtful. But "ostensibly" is a word that a great many readers won't understand. "Apparent" is more readable, but "apparent psychic abilities" still gives the impression that such abilities have "appeared". I still believe that the field is best characterised as a search for such abilities (and life after death), and think that wording could stand alongside a phrase to the effect that parapsychologist also seek to explain the results they achieve. Ryan Paddy (talk) 03:25, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, a great many more readers, I'm afraid, will take your word "search" at face value -- to mean, as I am sure you expect to be understood -- that parapsychologists are no more than witch hunters or ghost hunters. The word scarcely carries the convoluted subtlety of your reasoning. How will they understand pseudoscience and not understand ostensibly? Do you really expect me to think you are simply concerned that WP readers are incapable of discovering the meaning of an unknown word? Clearly you want the lead to be 'there aint no parapsychology -- there's just deluded idiots.' Be bold and just the hell say it. Don't wallow in the smug hypocrisy of your snobbish explanation that you are caring for the undereducated. You are not. You are pushing a point of view, and it's a point of view that doesn't belong as the fifth word of lead of an article on parapsychology. You're the one pushing first graph positive, second graph negative; no positive words in second graph. So let the first five words not necessarily deny the possiblity of every word to follow. --nemonoman (talk) 03:40, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

"scientific search for" is a perfectly accurate phrase to describe "experimenting, creating hypotheses, developing controlled methodologies, measuring and identifying results, drawing conclusions and reporting them". Those are all things that are part of the scientific method, and the use of the word "science" implies them. So I can't see the logic in your objection to "scientific search for", unless you object to the implication that parapsychologists haven't found evidence that convinces other scientists. However, that's the fact of the matter, so it's a valid implication. Some editors have pointed out that as well as searching for evidence, parapsychologists also analyse their results and if they believe it constitutes a demontration of "psi", attempt to explain it. That's a more logical objection than yours. I think that latter objection can be addressed in the wording. We do not need to resort to obfuscating fig-leaves like "ostensibly". This is a simple concept, and can be expressed in plain English. You're wrong about my bias. I rather like the idea of parapsychology. I don't want the article to imply that psychic abilities have been found, because that's a fringe view. I wish they had been found, that'd be cool. But they haven't been demonstrated to the satisfaction of the scientific community, so the article shouldn't imply it. Also, please try to be more civil and assume good faith. Clearly this is something you feel strongly about, but it's very rude to jump to such critical conclusions. You've seriously misunderstand my motivations. Ryan Paddy (talk) 03:52, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Please don't be disingenuous. You're the one driving the change. Ask yourself why. Be prepared to explain. One need not be a racist to have language and thoughts tinged by bigotry and prejudice. I'd believe your logic much more if you were actively trying just as hard to change the leads of other articles, like:

Geology is the scientific search for the solid matter that constitutes the Earth.
Physics is the scientific search for matter and its motion, as well as space and time.
Psychology is the scientific search for mental processes and behavior.

By your reasoning the words 'scientific search for' should be reasonably acceptable substitutes. But you know that that's a Big Stretch. You're not suggesting those changes for other articles. Because you believe in the existence of the subjects of study of those other sciences. You believe in matter, and motion. But your belief -- your Point of View -- that psychic phenomena don't exist immediately becomes obvious when you change study to search. --nemonoman (talk) 04:24, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I have explained, but will happily try again. "Scientific search for" would be suitable wording for any scientific inquiry into the existence of something for which there is no scientific consensus for the existence of. Rutherford embarked on a "scientific search for" a way to split the atom, and before it was shown that the atom consisted of component parts that would have been the accurate way to describe his research. Obviously such language doesn't apply to things like rocks, the existence of which is in no doubt. The existence of scientifically demonstrable psychic abilities is a fringe theory. Therefore, for now, any scientific investigation of psychic abilities is a search. Also, you continue to be uncivil, now comparing me to a racist. Please be polite, Wikipedia has guidelines against that kind of language. Ryan Paddy (talk) 04:50, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

So you are basically making the assumption that parapsychology is not a field of science, in saying that there is no scientific consensus. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 05:07, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

No. What? Why would I be happy with "scientific search..." if that was the case? Why would I compare it to the search for a way to split the atom, which was obviously a scientific search? I'm not addressing whether it's a science. I'm talking about whether our wording should imply that the subject matter exists when belief in its existence is a fringe theory. There are two very separate things here: whether it uses a scientific approach (and is therefore a science) and whether evidence of psychic phenomena are accepted by the scientific community. It may well be a science, but the evidence of phenomena is not accepted, therefore the scientific enquiry into them is best characterised as a "scientific search". I sure am getting misunderstood a lot. Let me put it this way: it is perfectly reasonably for a parapsychologist to go into their research with the assumption that there is no such thing as psychic phenomena. Right? They go about their work to disprove that "null hypothesis" that no psychic ability is being used. You don't have to believe in the fringe theory of the existence of psychic abilities to be a parapsychologist. You can just be an open-minded person who wants to discover the truth. Therefore, whether it's a science and whether the psychic abilities exist are totally separate subjects. Ryan Paddy (talk) 05:26, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, the only problem is that it makes it seem as if it's known that they haven't already found anything, which is controversial... and it also makes it sound like they don't do anything besides search, or at least that all their effort goes into trying to prove it exists. So how about something like "search for or study of," or "study of apparent psychic..." I know it's a bit wordy, but how are we going to get a perfectly simple definition without doing one of two things: drop the qualification (which the ArbCom entitles us to do) or making some sort of assumption (which "search for" does)? If it were up to me, I would just put "The study of psychic phenomena and life after death," and assume that the reader can pick up that "psychic phenomena" is controversial: in general they simply don't see themselves as searching anymore, and a lot of them argue to stop proof oriented studies. I admit that "search for" is pretty good, and encompasses most of parapsychological history. Yet at the same time it has just a bit of a problem. I don't like nitpicking with an editor like you who is not a debunker, so I'm really sorry to be doing this. Some of the good skeptics have been driven away from this article by controversy, and I don't want that to happen with you. I do think the word is important though, because I think "search" conveys a strong and controversial impression. BTW- the definition of "scientific consensus" is the consensus within the field. If parapsychology is a science.... but nevermind, heh. "Search for psychic phenomena and their mechanisms, conditions, and causes" is how they see themselves (not suggesting we use that, although parapsychology does end up debunking a lot). ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 07:22, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I think something like your phrasing of "Search for psychic abilities and life after death, and their mechanisms, conditions, and causes" would characterise it well. If it could be more concise and readable that'd be ideal. You say that "search" conveys a strong and controversial impression, but I don't believe that to be the case. If belief in psychic abilities is a fringe theory, and I think we all agree on that, then how can it be contraversial to say they are searching? Ryan Paddy (talk) 20:14, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Have to separate something for clarity. You said "If belief in psychic abilities is a fringe theory..." (my emphasis). It's important to be clear that it's a fringe theory in science that it's evidenced, or even possible, but outside science belief in psychic phenomena is not fringe. It's a belief held by a large proportion of the population.[5] --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 22:14, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

That's the nature of compromise. You may have to settle for a word that some readers may not get, but is accurate, in order to collaborate with other editors that have valid points as well. This is one of the reasons I'm retired from actively editing the article. Lot of strong opinions on exact wording and after several years of working on the article it's a bit much for me : ) --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 03:34, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

There will be other wording that can reach consensus, "ostensibly" is not the only way to describe this. I understand about the frustrations of verbal pedantry, but in the end an encyclopedia is made out of only words and pictures, so getting the words right does matter. I've seen at least one article that was far more contraversial than this reach stable, neutral, accurate and readable wording in the lede. Ryan Paddy (talk) 04:05, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

So what would you suggest besides "ostensiblly" and "search?" We used "certain types of paranormal phenoemena such as psychokinesis and..." at one time. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 04:39, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

"Scientific search for" with some additional remark to include analysis remains a better option than "study of ostensibly". The other previous wording you mention doesn't address the issue at all, and is also over-verbose. Ryan Paddy (talk)

Hey, Nemonoman, you have a lot of good stuff to say, but could you not use caps all the time? You're not a kook, but everyone else here will think you are just because of the caps. Yeah, we do not need to use qualifiers. If it sounds like a judgment we shouldn't (as with "purported"), but if we can, like in this case, make our writing sound neutral and still use a qualifier, it is not such a bad thing to do considering a lot of people want it. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 00:01, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll have a go: '...a discipline that seeks to prove the existence, conditions and causes of psychic abilities or life after death through the scientific method.--nemonoman (talk) 20:27, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

PS: or life after death, as the two areas of research are not necessarily combined. PK studies have no particular relationship to the afterlife. --nemonoman (talk) 20:30, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

That's good. Although I think "and" would be more readable than "or". "And" only means that the field as a whole involves research into both topics. It doesn't imply that individual researchers study both or combine them. "Or" reads funny. I rather like the phrasing "seeks to... through the scientific method", as that also implies that while they are trying to use the scientific method, not all scientists agree that they're using it appropriately. Which is an accurate characterisation of the situation as well. Ryan Paddy (talk) 22:30, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I do think my Wonderful New Sentence might set a better and more consensus tone. Why can't we all just get along?? . As for and vs or...I think they both suck. And doesn't necessarily guarantee that the subjects are combined, but to the casual reader they might seem so. Or however doesn't scan and also seems very nitpicky. --nemonoman (talk) 23:27, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. How about: "Parapsychology is a discipline that seeks to demonstrate the existence and causes of psychic abilities and life after death using the scientific method."? Ryan Paddy (talk) 00:36, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Borderline pseudoscience

I've been searching Google Scholar for articles about whether parapsychology is regarded as a pseudoscience by scientists. The overall impression I'm coming away with is that while many in the scientific community may regard it that way, those who go to trouble to expose it to structured philosophical scrutiny (because delineating science from pseudoscience is essentially a matter of philosophy of science) and publish their findings are less sure. They may criticise it severely, but seem to conclude that it walks the blurry line between science and pseudoscience, rather than being obviously pseudoscience in the way that for example astrology is. A prime example of this attitude is "Parapsychology: Science or Pseudoscience?" by Antony Flew, in the book "Philosophy of Science and the Occult". About this article the editer of the book comments that "At no point does Flew simply label parapsychology as pseudoscience. But he does propose that [it should not be admitted to scientific associations because it hasn't found anything]" I think that the current text of "Some science educators and scientists have called the subject pseudoscience" is accurate, because some have. However, a better characterisation might be that while some scientists label parapsychology pseudoscience, those who have looked at the subject closely suggest that parapsychology is one of the few areas of paranormal study that isn't plainly pseudoscience, but that it walks a fine line between science and pseudoscience because of dubious methods employed - which is what Flew and others seem to conclude. Ryan Paddy (talk) 03:13, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

We took the approach of "Questionable science" from WP:PSCI, including the notable opinion but not outright characterizing it as such. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 03:21, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

"Some science educators and scientists" is weasel. We used to have examples of the opinion holders listed, but it's a difficult sentence. You want to avoid weaselness (mass attribution), but you also don't want to fall into a case of particular attribution either. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 03:29, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Dunno, it's not like it's "scientists say". That would be clearly wrong. "Some scientists" followed by a list of references that back it up with quotes of the usage in the footnotes seems appropriate, because we're providing example in the citations. What would be ideal is if we find sources saying that some scientists hold this position. I suspect they're out there, because the sources I've been reading imply that's the case strongly so it's likely some of them will make it explicit. I agree that naming the scientists who've said it in the lede is just too wordy. In any case, my main point here is that a better characterisation might be "borderline pseudoscience", or yes perhaps "questionable science". That seems to be what the more informed scientists who are writing articles about it say. Ryan Paddy (talk) 04:16, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Except that is synthesis. That is the overall impression, but what they actually say is "science, but with some problems." ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 04:34, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not proposing wording yet. I think it should be based on a closer reading of whatever sources we use regarding scientist's views on what quality of science or pseudoscience it is. So we should compile a set of relevant articles and report on their findings, preferably using their language and not synthesising but also keeping it as concise as possible. I haven't gotten through that many sources yet, so I'm only raising it as a discussion point not pushing for a specific change at this stage. Ryan Paddy (talk) 04:57, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Here is one article [6]. I'm sure others will have other article suggestions. This is the only one I know which is a direct analysis of the question "is it pseudoscience." ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 22:35, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I've seen a number of such articles - there are two in the book I mentioned, "Philosophy of Science and the Occult". We should make a listing of them in talk, rate the sources for reliability (to give preference to the most reliable), and agree on characterisations of their positions on both the standing of parapsychology in the scientific community at large (for example, that article you linked explicitly states that it's regarded as pseudoscience by the French scientific community), and on the conclusions of published analysis of its status as a science. Then we'll be in a position to describe the scientific community's views in the article, with RS to back us up. Such articles will also be valuable sources for the methodological criticisms section of the article. Ryan Paddy (talk) 00:20, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

The characterization as pseudoscience -and that is the impression the general reader will come away with- was added recently long after it made FA, but before it made the main page. My impression is that critics who actually do some research generally say that many times it has good methodology and therefore it can't be called pseudoscience (as science may be science and yet have no results). Alternately, they might say that it has results but didn't use good enough methods. I tend to think that the strongest case for not calling it pseudoscience is simply that its greatest critics, such as Hyman, Randi, Alcock, and Wiseman do not call it pseudoscience, and have sometimes called it a real science. I'm really glad to see someone doing the research- so many people come and have strong opinions but will not do any research (-: Anyway, I might sum up that critics say parapsychology is borderline science either because it didn't use perfect methodology (which is at times false), or else critics who do think it did use good methodology (such as Hyman on the Ganzfeld experiments) say that it is borderline as a science because it doesn't have a theory; others would say because it doesn't have "any" results. There are different reasons, anyway, for saying it's borderline, but you came to exactly the right conclusion, that it is generally considered borderline by critics who look deeply into the matter. It is in fact correct to consider it borderline, and the criticism of parapsychology being without a theory is probably the most valid criticism you will find. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 03:39, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

NPOV needed for opening

The opening statement says what parapsychology is in the first paragraph and denounces the results in the second paragraph. It would be better balanced if the opening first stated some of the reasons skeptics are so upset before we begin with denouncing those results Tom Butler (talk) 17:33, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

No, no! Sentence first, trial later!! --nemonoman (talk) 17:56, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I only just got this Alice in Wonderland reference. Very droll. Ryan Paddy (talk) 09:39, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi Tom. I agree that the opening needs to neutrally define the field. The only nod in this direction currently is the word "ostensibly", intended to indicate that it's not known if the things under study actually exist. Personally I find the word unclear, and having been suggesting "is the scientific search for psychic abilities...". I think that would address the fact that the results have not been accepted, if only by implication. What sort of wording did you have in mind? In terms of structure in the lede, I see it as 1) definition 2) elaboration 3) criticism. While I think the elaboration should remain "for" and the criticism "against", the definition (i.e. the first sentence) should attempt to strike a balance. Ryan Paddy (talk) 20:02, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

A generalization of the results should be based on the results indicted for the kinds of research listed in the Methodology section. However, I see some NPOV problems there, as well. For instance, "Direct mental interactions with living systems" is the title of a study which is then used as the reference for the subject. Each of these research types are ended with what amounts to a "oh well, nothing there either" kind of dismissal. Radin has reported a presentiment study at: http://deanradin.blogspot.com/2007/06/presentiment-in-brain.html There are many of these, and they all produce substantial results. "presentiment" is probably a better term than what is there.

So first, I think the research needs to be more fairly presented in the Research section. Take a look at: THE PARANORMAL: THE EVIDENCE AND ITS IMPLICATIONS FOR CONSCIOUSNESS by Jessica Utts and Brian D. Josephson, http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~bdj10/psi/tucson.html

See also: AN ASSESSMENT OF THE EVIDENCE FOR P SYCHIC FUNCTIONING by Jessica Utts, http://anson.ucdavis.edu/~utts/air2.html in which she concluded (in part): "It is clear to this author that anomalous cognition is possible and has been demonstrated...."

I think it is better not to name people in the intro. There are arguments for and against, and they either have merit or not. Radin is a proponent and Alcock is a dissenter, but what Radin is a proponent of is what matters because he is not alone in that work.

The article primarily discusses psi function studies, which I think is justified, but the other forms of research, such as survival, field study verses lab study should either be addressed or linked to in some way. Tom Butler (talk) 20:57, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I think each of the research sections ending with criticisms of the research is appropriate, given that this is a field that is largely regarded with skepticism by the scientific community. To end these sections by saying essentially "and it looks like the results are a good demonstration of psi" would mischaracterise the fringe nature of such conclusions and be an undue promotion of fringe theories. The conclusions of Jessica Utts, from what I recall (she's the maths specialist who looked into remote viewing experiments, right?), are not well regarded by the wider scientific community and I believe have been subject to "debunking". That's fairly typical, and presenting opinions like hers as the final word would be misleading. I agree with not naming people in the intro, we should present the arguments of the various sides and cite them as "proponents of X say" and "critics of X say" or similar wording, while also attempting to characterise the opinions of the scientific community at large (because the scientific consensus is of special relevance in relation to a scientific field). The trick is doing that in a way that's an accurate characterisation of their positions, and structuring and wording it in a way that presents fringe theory without promoting it. Ryan Paddy (talk) 22:23, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Presenting any subject without promoting it is exactly what many of us have been asking for, so long as the subject is not also misrepresented. The section on criticism is large enough for criticism. There is no need nor sense in criticism in the research section. If you do not like Jessica Utts (and please do not try to do a character assassination on each reference, in turn) perhaps meta analysis would work. This one has looked at research into seven categories of phenomena. I have included a few quotes that might be useful for expressing the state of the art for the subject.

Experimental Evidence Suggestive of Anomalous Consciousness Interactions by Deborah L. Delanoy Department of Psychology, University of Edinburgh

http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~bdj10/psi/delanoy/delanoy.html

"The finding of a significant physiological effect, with no corresponding effect shown by a conscious response measure, supports similar findings from Tart [28] and Targ and Puthoff [29], and suggests that subtle psi interactions may occur without any conscious recognition on the part of the subject." http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~bdj10/psi/delanoy/node5.html

"...it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that under certain circumstances, consciousness interacts with random physical" http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~bdj10/psi/delanoy/node4.html

"The finding of a significant physiological effect, with no corresponding effect shown by a conscious response measure, supports similar findings from Tart [28] and Targ and Puthoff [29], and suggests that subtle psi interactions may occur without any conscious recognition on the part of the subject." http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~bdj10/psi/delanoy/node5.html

"Given these relationships it is difficult to dismiss the findings as ``merely an unexplained departure from a theoretical chance baseline" http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~bdj10/psi/delanoy/node7.html Tom Butler (talk) 23:33, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Tom, you've been around long enough to know that those are primary sources. The "oh, well, nothing here" is the independent analysis. A great deal of the research section was pulled from mainstream psychology journals. Though it's been augmented to report the conclusions of parapsychologists as well, it's really the independent analysis that has weight. I've been through most of these journals and not one independent journal said there is unequivocally something there that can't be explained in some other way. Parapsychological sources say that, but not the psychology journals. Radin, Utts, and Delanoy are all parapsychologists. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 06:02, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

There's no need for character assassination to be sure, but we have to give consideration to whether sources are reliable and consider criticisms of them. Are any of the sources you've listed published in peer-reviewed journals or books? On the subject of whether the research examples shouldn't have criticism included, I can't agree. If examples with results are to be provided, then criticisms of those results has to be considered. Otherwise the impression is given that the results are unchallenged, which seems in most cases to be inaccurate. Ryan Paddy (talk) 00:27, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I haven't been following this discussion, but I like what you two -Ryan and nemonoman- came up with in the recent changes. Good job! ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 02:37, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I knew if I peppered him with enough baseless insults, he'd come up with a Good Idea. Thanks Ryan.--nemonoman (talk) 02:39, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

See Ryan, psychics do exist. How else would he have known that would work? ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 03:59, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Hey, I'm not your pet skeptic! Please keep the appropriate attitude of mutual disrespect up. ;) Anyhow, the wording didn't come from me, I just agreed with it. And Tom has some other points in this section, so let's let him finish. Ryan Paddy (talk) 04:19, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I think we are in agreement. Critical analysis is part of the subject. I have reread the methodologies, and I think I just focused on the Direct mental interactions with living systems section. That whole section is about a specific study and there have been many studies as discussed here: http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~bdj10/psi/delanoy/node5.html#SECTION00050000000000000000. In fact, I agree that the other sections seem fairly written. It may be informative in the future to include presentiment, as I have noted above. That is a more specific test for conscious/unconscious interactions with the environment. Presentiment and biofields have become a fascination for the public and will eventually need to be addressed.

Other than the Direct mental interactions with living systems section, I think the intro could be written to generalize the results based on how each method is reported here. This statement from the conclusion of the study I referenced above might serve as a defensible guide: "The consistency of outcomes found in the ganzfeld research, the robust PK effects, the modifying variables revealed by the precognition database, the variety of target systems displaying DMILS effects and the correlations found with personality traits are all indicative of lawful relationships."

The details of the article are:

From Ghista, Dhanjoo N. (Ed.): Biomedical and Life Physics, pp. 398-410. Proceedings of the Second Gauss Symposium, 2-8 August, 1993, Munich. xvi, 545pp. Vieweg, Braunschweig/Wiesbaden, 1996 (email for information) ISBN 3-528-06877-9

Do you agree that meta analysis is not original research?

Parapsychologists are generally conservative researchers and I know they are careful not to give the appearance of sloppy science, especially of selective reporting of results. It will be hard to find parapsychologists that say psi functioning has been substantially proven while it is easy to find references saying that it is all nonsense. One has to prove it. Tom Butler (talk) 16:45, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Published meta-analysis is not original research, no. However it is important to remember that independent researchers arrived at different conclusions. The conclusions are thus attributable opinions. After attribution, then you get into weighting opinions by prominence. For example, the PEAR lab trials, of course, were reported by Jahn to have statistical significance when combined in meta-analysis. As cited in the article, however, an independent meta-analysis (H. Bösch et al. Psychol. Bull. 132, 497–523; 2006) concluded that although there is a statistically significant overall effect, it is not consistent and relatively few negative studies would cancel it out. They suggested biased publication of positive results could be the cause. You have contrasting opinions. Then you have to weight the opinions and present them according to which opinions are more popular. What you end up with is what we have here. Parapsychologists feel there is a statistically significant effect, however everyone else feels that this is easily cancelled out or explained by methodological flaws. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 18:41, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Neal on this. Ryan Paddy (talk) 19:56, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I should add that the DMIL study example was provided by User:Annalisa Ventola, a parapsychologist, as an example rather than an exhaustive list of such studies. I can't speak for her, but she didn't seem to have a problem with the section. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 23:33, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure what you are addressing here. The article is written as "this is reported" and "this is the disagreement" and I am not complaining about that. The opposing views are in different sections, and I have not looked to see if they are a point-counterpoint discussion or point-impossible whatever they said discussion. If it is the latter, then the reader is not being served no matter who looks right. A good report would have methodology followed by discussion which includes the good bad and the ugly, but that is just style.

My remaining points are that the intro is lopsided and the DMILS methodology seems to under represent the category. Not being a parapsychologist, I will yield to Ventola, but as I see the question of sensing being stared at, it is part of a larger question concerning presentiment. As noted above, see http://deanradin.blogspot.com/2007/06/presentiment-in-brain.html. I accept that there are practical limits to how complete and current the article can be, so for the sake of managing my available time, I would like to focus on making the intro a little better reflect the body. Tom Butler (talk) 01:06, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Focusing on the intro sounds fair. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 05:03, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Draft Opening

I understand that this has been discussed for a long time, so it would be good to agree on changes here. Consider this intro:

Parapsychology is the scientific and scholarly study of three kinds of unusual events (ESP, mind-matter interaction, and survival), which are associated with human experience. [1] Laboratory and field research is conducted by privately funded laboratories and some universities around the world,[1] although there are fewer universities actively sponsoring parapsychological research today than in years past. Such research is usually published in parapsychological publications, and some articles have appeared in more mainstream journals.

Experiments have included the use of random number generators to test for evidence of precognition and psychokinesis with both human and animal subjects,[2][3][4] sensory-deprivation and Ganzfeld experiments to test for extrasensory perception, and research trials conducted under contract to the United States government to investigate whether remote viewing would provide useful intelligence information. Meta-analysis of research using these methodologies has indicated a slightly above chance demonstration of anaomolous abilities generally referred to as psi (parapsychology). From Ghista, Dhanjoo N. (Ed.): Biomedical and Life Physics, pp. 398-410. Proceedings of the Second Gauss Symposium, 2-8 August, 1993, Munich. xvi, 545pp. Vieweg, Braunschweig/Wiesbaden, 1996 (email for information) ISBN 3-528-06877-9

The scientific community outside the field of parapsychology has not accepted evidence of the existence of psychic abilities or life after death.[5][6][7][8][9] Some science educators and scientists have called the subject pseudoscience.[10] Some psychologists have criticized both the methods used and the results obtained in parapsychology, stating that methodological flaws may explain any apparent experimental successes. Tom Butler (talk) 19:23, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

The first sentence is much poorer than the existing one. Implying the existence of such "unusual events" violates WP:FRINGE by promoting a fringe theory. The only other change seems to be the mention of results from meta-analysis. Mentioning positive results from meta-analysis without also describing the criticisms of it is unbalanced, especially given that more selective meta-analysis has supported the null hypothesis. Also, how much above chance is "slightly"? And how large an effect are we talking about? If this was medicine, would the result be considered "clinically significant"? I.e. is it so small as to be irrelevant? I don't recall seeing discussion of that anywhere in the article, except for "very small but statistically significant", which is rather uninformative. Ryan Paddy (talk) 19:38, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

"Statistically significant", of course, means a statistical deviation from chance. The amount of deviation depends on the study, what they're studying, and who's doing the interpreting. It varies. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 20:50, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

The first sentence is taken almost verbatim from the Parapsychological Association definition. From my reading, the first reference cannot be used for the first sentence as it is written now. The "discipline" does not seek to demonstrate, it seeks to study. I have to disagree with your contention that the current sentence is correct or better written; however, I would be happy to see a paraphrase of what Parapsychologists call themselves. I am not trying to push a fringe theory. What the subject is must be defined as what it is, not how you want it to look.

I do not understand your point: "Mentioning positive results from meta-analysis without also describing the criticisms of it is unbalanced..." The criticism is in the next paragraph. Do you want the paragraphs to run together? How about a reword based on your perspective? All I want to see is what the criticism is criticizing to be stated before it is criticized.

As to size effect compared to medical, from that same reference, "... The effect sizes in these studies tend to be very small (RNG--PK) to moderate (i.e., DMILS) in size. However, even the smaller effect sizes appear to be reliably found in the databases. Furthermore, the size of an effect does not provide a good indication of its potential meaningfulness or applicability. For example, a recent medical study investigating whether aspirin could help prevent heart attacks was ended prematurely because the effectiveness of the treatment was so clearly demonstrated after six months of trials that the investigators thought it would be unethical to withhold the treatment further from the control group. Indeed, the findings from the study were heralded as a major medical breakthrough. While the findings from this study were highly significant ( = 25.01, p = 0.00001), the effect size is .068, considerably smaller than some of the effect sizes found in the psi literature [12, 13]." Tom Butler (talk) 21:00, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

It's hardly surprising that your sentence was taken from the Parapsychological Association definition, given how biased it is and how promotional of their point of view. "Scientific and scholarly study" is a defensive posture against the most common criticism put against the discipline, that it's unscientific. We have to describe it in such a way that accurately characterises what they actually do. What they say they do is only one source of information for that, criticism of what they do is another source. In terms of stating results in the lede, I would be happy with something along the lines of "Parasychologists have said that they have found statistically significant results while researching X, Y, and Z" towards the end of the first paragraph, although preferably with less clumsy wording. The claim needs to be attributed to the parapschologists, it can't be attributed to "meta-analysis". Ryan Paddy (talk) 20:19, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay, so we have different opinions about how biased the Parapsychological Association is about how they define their subject. The fact is that the definition is how they define the subject. I don't mind throwing out "and scholarly," but we really need to make the distinction between academic and hobby parapsychology. The article is written as academic. Tom Butler (talk) 21:32, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

"Seeks to" is equivalent to "tries to." Parapsychologists have succeeded in conducting experiments and investigating results.

"Demonstrate" suggests that they are attempting to show when in reality, they are attempting to understand. It is in fact, "the investigation into claims." Remember that being a parapsychologist does not require that the person believes in these phenomena. Some scientists have the fortitude to actually investigate claims to see if they are valid. Some of the most meaningful criticisms of parapsychology has come from parapsychologists. Unless someone can show credible references saying that all parapsychologists are believers, the wording proposed by SA is more supportable. (Did I actually say that?) Tom Butler (talk) 23:43, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Blog source

I removed the blog source in accordance with Wikipedia sourcing policies, as explained in the edit summary. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 19:13, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I've put this back but moved it to being a source for some scientists calling it a pseudoscience, which I think it where it was meant to be. He's a notable physicist, and a self-published source is a reliable source for his opinion. As I've said above I think the "pseudoscience" text could be improved, but as it stands that's a suitable source for the existing text. Ryan Paddy (talk) 19:54, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Standards?

Quote: "Parapsychology is the investigation into claims of the existence and causes of psychic abilities and life after death according to some standards of the scientific method." What exactly are "some standards of the scientific method"? This makes no sense whatsoever to me as a scientist. It is also weasley implying that scientific methodology is not always followed rigorously. If this is the case, it should say so.

What about: "Parapsychology is the investigation into claims of the existence and causes of psychic abilities and life after death. Investigative work includes anecdotal evidence as well as scientific enquiry (which has not always been followed rigorously and not always subjected to peer review)"? --Candy (talk) 19:16, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah, Candy, good point. The word "claims" you use above wouldn't be accurate, as they do much more, for example setting up experiments to test for the ability, etc. Also, they aren't investigating "claims of causes," usually. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 22:32, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

The first sentence has undergone a number of revisions of late. I've reverted the most recent, which is the one you were reading. It now reads "Parapsychology is a discipline that seeks to demonstrate the existence and causes of psychic abilities and life after death using the scientific method." Parapsychologists self-describe themselves as using the scientific method, and not anecdotal evidence. However the status of parapsychology as a science or pseudoscience is debated, so it can be accurately described with the neutral "discipline" and characterised as "seeking" to use the scientific method. Ryan Paddy (talk) 20:01, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

The phrase ""Parapsychology is a discipline that seeks to demonstrate the existence and causes of psychic abilities and life after death using the scientific method." is clearly at odds with the scientific method. Science does not "seek" to demonstrate anything. --Candy (talk) 06:01, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I support the revert. However, numerous skeptics specifically have described it as science. I do not think that is in dispute.

James Randi:

If Stanovich is referring to parapsychology as a pseudoscience, I disagree. It has all the structure and appearance of any other science, and must be respected as such. The fact that differentiates it from other sciences is largely that it has no history of successful experiments upon which to base conclusions.

Richard Wiseman:

I agree that by the standards of any other area of science that remote viewing is proven, but begs the question: do we need higher standards of evidence when we study the paranormal? I think we do. If I said that there is a red car outside my house, you would probably believe me. But if I said that a UFO had just landed, you'd probably want a lot more evidence. Because remote viewing is such an outlandish claim that will revolutionise the world, we need overwhelming evidence before we draw any conclusions. Right now we don't have that evidence.

Alcock:

Thus, to the sceptical reader, I stress that these parapsychological writers are in our camp, the scientific camp. They believe in science and strive to apply it

Beyerstein:

Some critics dismiss psychical research... as unalloyed pseudoacience. Despite the long history of self-delusion, non-replicable findings, and fraud that has plagued the field, it must be conceded that there is, today, a core of honest and competent researchers who employ the conventional methods of psychological research in their quest for paranormal phenomena... [and these] should not be branded as pseudoscientists.

end quote

Parapsychology is science. The only realy dispute -outside Wikipedia- is whether they have valid enough results to change our perception of science. Not, among informed critics, about whether they have results, but only about whether the results are good enough. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 21:08, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, parapsychology or any other science will not change our perception of science. Your response, Martinphi, seems to assume that if there were peer reviewed acceptance of evidence which supported the existance of repeatable paranormal phenomena/phenomenon that this would chance science. It would not. --Candy (talk) 06:07, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

That is technically true, but I was using "science" in two ways, as method and as result. However, as parapsychology calls into question the traditional understanding of cause and effect, I'm not so sure you are right. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 23:59, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Another quote, this time from the Quackwatch site:

An alternative I have heard suggested is to drop the extraordinary proof argument and instead to hold paranormal and alternative medicine claims strictly to the ordinary requirements of replicability and good research. This approach sounds sensible but it has a serious flaw. Skeptics are not willing to accept the plausibility of most paranormal claims unless the evidence is extremely strong. We risk being perceived (correctly) as disingenuous if we call for solid quality research, then revert to the extraordinary claims argument should it in fact appear.

In some areas of paranormal investigation, such as extrasensory perception (ESP), the research is already often better done than much orthodox scientific research, with controls and double-checks most scientists would regard as overkill. Skeptics mostly still feel that the intrinsic implausibility is so great that nothing short of airtight and well-repeated research would be sufficient to support ESP. Little or none of the existing research rises to that level, so we remain skeptical. (Some recent work has been of high quality, see Ray Hyman's article, "The Evidence for Psychic Functioning: Claims vs. Reality", in the March/April 1996 Skeptical Inquirer, pp 24-26.) Had skeptics said some 40 years ago that all we wanted was reasonable quality replicated research, we might now be having to eat our words. [7] ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 05:45, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Now the first sentence is even worse: "Parapsychology is a discipline that seeks to demonstrate the existence and causes of psychic abilities and life after death using the scientific method." First of all the word discipline is obtuse in this. If it truly "seeks to demonstrate" then it is not science. If there is no evidence for psychic abilities then looking for causes is not scientific. What you are describing is a belief system.

"Parapsychology is the scientific study of claims of the existence of psychic ability and life after death." (alternatively "for" the existence ...) would be a more sensible lead statement (if indeed that is what parapsychology is). Gosh, hard to believe I haven't got past the first line yet! --Candy (talk) 06:16, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

There are two problematic points needing to be addressed in the opening definition. One is the status of parapsychology: science, pseudoscience, something else? The other is that the definition should not promote belief in the paranormal as accepted fact, explicitly or implicitly, or it will violate WP:FRINGE. Your formulation uses "scientific", which is not as strong an assertion as "science" but will still raise heckles amongst editors who think that status is debatable. Your use of "claims of the existence" is one way to avoid the issue of promoting a fringe belief, I'm happy with it to that extent. However, I think it's a little unwieldy to say that parapsychology "studies claims". That use of the word "claims" as the subject of study seems a poor characterisation of what an individual parapsychologist does: they formulate a hypothesis for the existence of a certain sort of paranormal activity, then design and execute an experiment to see whether the null hypothesis can be rejected. At the individual experiment level, the only "claim" they're studying is their own hypothetical one. However, at a big-picture societal level I can see that they are in fact investigating claims. If no-one in society believed in psychic abilities and life after death, and noone made claims about it, then parapsychology wouldn't exist. I think that "claims" wording is a good effort, but is a little too ambiguous. Ryan Paddy (talk) 22:41, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

It's also worth noting that some parapsychologists, who see themselves as the specialist scientists in their field, do believe that they have found experimentally-based evidence of psychic phenomena. So as well as investigating whether it exists, they attempt to explain the causes of the evidence they have found for its existence. That's why the current worindg includes "causes". On a separate issue, I do see what you mean about "seeks to demonstrate the existence" implyig that parapsychologists are "believers" trying to prove what they already know, but the wording wasn't intended to imply that. It was intended to imply "seeks to demonstate the existence or non-existence", i.e. seeking to discover whether it exists or not, which is a valid scientific question even if some people find their methods questionable or the question a pointless one (I've seen it compared to trying to demonstrate whether phrenology works, as an example of a potentially scientific but practically pointless field). I'm just aiming for a wording that tells the various sides of the story, while reaching as accurate a characterisation as we can. Ryan Paddy (talk) 01:59, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

That's certainly well put. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 04:31, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Ryan Paddy, "seeking to discover whether it exists or not, which is a valid scientific question even ....." is not scientific. Science works on a null hypothesis. There are no two sides to the story. It is either scientific or non-scientific. I feel you have supported the non-scientific basis of pseudoscience. --Candy (talk) 16:18, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi Candy. What I mean is that a lay question such as "does this psychic ability exist?" can be translated into a testable null hypothesis such as "there is no difference between the attempted use of X ability and chance/control in Y situation that can't be explained by commonly understood principles of physics, psychology, etc", upon which you can test for statistical significance in any difference in the results. It doesn't matter what the experimenter believes (so long as they are blinded), what makes an experiment scientific is the method not the intent. A great many scientists believe something that hasn't been proven yet, on a hunch. It's how they test that hunch that makes it science or non-science. In any case, my opinion and your opinion on whether parapsychology is scientific is completely irrelevant. We only have to ensure that the article reflects opinions in reliable sources on the subject. I haven't seen your argument that it's not science because it's a belief system in any reliable sources as yet, but please let us know if you have one. Ryan Paddy (talk) 20:13, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

That is an oft-expressed opinion, and I think it must be in some source or other. Perhaps Nealparr knows one. I'm not sure where to draw the line in terms of whether or not a source is too much in the minority to mention though, especially in the lead. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 22:28, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

"I haven't seen your argument that it's not science because it's a belief system in any reliable sources as yet, but please let us know if you have one." Paddy .... Just for the record. If you all re-read my comments, you may see I am not saying that parapsychology is or is not a science. I am stating that there are words such as "seeks" which should not be used if it is a science. --Candy (talk) 15:29, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Science seeks to discover the nature of reality. Parapsychology seeks to discover whether psychic phenomena are an aspect of reality. I see where you're coming from about "seeks to demonstrate the existence" seeming like Parapsychologists are pushing a barrow rather than investigating, but it's intended to mean that Paraspsycholoogy is seeking to discover whether such things exist, or not. It's clear that you find the wording ambiguous, but more readable in its current form than in other permutations it's had, and this phrasing has some level of acceptance from both skeptics such as myself and supporters of Parapsychology. Is there are way we can make minor tweaks to the wording that would remove your concerns? Ryan Paddy (talk) 22:46, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Request quotation

I would like to know exactly what the Layton, David (1974). Studies in Science Education. University of Leeds, Centre for Studies in Science Education source says about parapsychology. I'm requesting a quotation per WP:V here, where it says as a reference "When there is dispute about whether the article text is fully supported by the given source, direct quotes from the source and any other details requested should be provided as a courtesy to substantiate the reference" ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 22:27, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Layton was referring to Harry Collins's writings on the sociology of science, talking about various approaches, and used "parapsychology, phrenology, UFOs and Sea Serpents" as examples of "para-science, pseudscience, and fringe science". Harry Collins is a skeptic of psi research ~~along the lines of Martin Gardner (who quoted him often in the Skeptical Inquirer in the mid-80s)~~. OK, so not that skeptical, but still. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 06:49, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Should add a Collins' source. He'd be great in this article. He's notable to the subject and is a sociologist that specifically undertook the question of whether parapsychology is scientific. His conclusion (as a sociologist) is that the principle reason parapsychology is not regarded as a science is because it lacks institutional support.

He writes:

"To a Martian, the world of parapsychology would look like a miniature version of its respectable brother. But parapsychology will never be thought of as proper science on Earth unless it comes to share the institutions of the cognitive life of science." Changing order: Replication and Induction in Scientific Practice, p. 125

--Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 07:10, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Well what you're saying makes it sound as though the criticism we have in the lead "calling it pseudoscience" is an oversimplification of the skeptical position. Also, that academic parapsychology may not have been meant, for instance ghost hunters call themselves parapsychologists. Collins seems much more educated and nuanced. There is a very good article which I was surprised to find on Quackwatch which I quoted above. We might take that as something to look at. It is an honest and straightforward explication of probably the most basic reason skeptics don't accept parapsychological results.

In any case, the Layton source does not seem to support the word "pseudoscience," unless he specifically mentioned which category he puts parapsychology in- I mean, is it "para-science, pseudoscience, [or] fringe science"? ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 23:34, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

He was equating para-science, pseudoscience, and fringe science as synonymns. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 04:30, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

And that's being taken seriously as a source? As editors we do have the responsibility to evaluate sources. What do you think should be done here? ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 04:44, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

In your last post you were saying that he's an "educated and nuanced" source, and now you're questioning whether he should be taken seriously. The only thing that's changed in the middle is that you've realised you don't like what he says. ;) It's perfectly logical for him to state that parapsycholgoy is seen by scientists as falling into the realm of para-science, pseudoscience, and fringe science (i.e. things that are not regarded as science to a lessor or greater degree). Those three descriptors are closely related, and various scientists class it differently. But scientists sometimes class it as pseudoscience, that's clear from the source. I still think that analysis of the "status of parapsychology" needs to be better characterised in the article, but just trying to pick away at one source won't get anywhere. Ryan Paddy (talk) 05:30, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I was talking about Collins, not Layton. Layton, I believe, is the one who can't tell the difference. Collins says that quote above. Sorry, slithered out of that one, snakelike. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 05:46, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

The "status" of parapsychology is pretty well covered in the section "Parapsychology today". If by status you mean whether or not it is (factually) science, that really depends on who you talk to and what demarcation criteria they support. It's a matter of attributable opinion. The various opinions are pretty well covered in the article. Parapsychology has some continuing academic support, though comparatively little. It's bigger in European countries, like the UK, versus the US (there were no sources saying why that may be). Some critics call it outright pseudoscience, while others lump it in with mere soft science or fringe science unlikely to produce anything worthwhile. Without synthesizing the sources too much (let the reader draw their own conclusion), the gist a reader may get out of it is that parapsychology is a failed, deprecated, or useless science hailing from the spiritualism craze of the late-1800s, revived during the cultural experimentation of the 1970s, and somewhat out of fashion in today's age. Pinning it down into a single status-statement would be difficult without drawing from one's own opinion or biasedly favoring certain sources over others. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 06:45, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

"...the gist a reader may get out of it is that parapsychology is a failed, deprecated, or useless science hailing from the spiritualism craze of the late-1800s, revived during the cultural experimentation of the 1970s, and somewhat out of fashion in today's age." Is that what you think the conclusion should be? Why is it that everything hails "...from the spiritualism craze..."? Phenomena occurred, it was studied in what became parapsychology and it was applied in life as what became systems of belief known as Spiritualism and Spiritism. Be careful not to make your viewpoint bias the article. Once again, Wikipedia is not a medium for social engineering. Tom Butler (talk) 17:53, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not even editing the article, Tom, so it'd be hard for me to bias the article. But I did say "let the reader draw their own conclusion". The facts are listed in the article. It started in the 1800s as a response to spiritualist claims, had a resurgence during the 1970s during which it had a little bit of acceptance, and then it fizzled out. What conclusion is there to draw other than the one I mentioned above? But that's not a conclusion put in the article, because it's just my opinion (though most share that view as well). Still, if the reader comes away thinking it is cutting edge science on the verge of a major breakthrough that will revolutionize science, that's fine, not my problem. The article summarizes the history of parapsychology as it actually occured. If someone comes to that conclusion, it's probably not based on the facts of the matter. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 19:42, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

"let the reader draw their own conclusion." is what is being counted on here by the skeptics. If sufficient doubt is cast, even the best references showing the existence of phenomena is cast in doubt. That is why I am so concerned with individual words. You all are as well. I say that scholarly is okay but some of you say that it implies a positive result that Wikipedia (read skeptics) will not allow. Neal, you are definitely attempting to guide what the reader concludes by guiding this discussion.

Everyone sould be aware that relating a study to a religion implies that the study is really just part of that religion. The skeptics don't have to say parapsychology is pseudoscience or fringe. All they have to do is let readers "draw their own conclusion" by suggesting that it is the study of religion. I will say it again. The phenomena exists independent of Spiritualism. It was studied because it existed and studied Spiritualists practitioners because they were the ones who could demonstrate the phenomena. Tom Butler (talk) 00:09, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

If a particular groups is one which can demonstrate a quality, then that group is definitely relevant to the article that deals with the ostensible study of that quality. ScienceApologist (talk) 00:30, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree, but there is a huge difference between being a practitioner and researching the practice. I have no objection of saying that Spiritualism is based on many of the subjects studied by parapsychology. That is true. I also have no problem saying that Spiritualist practitioners are amongst the people providing examples for study. That is also true. I do have a problem with saying that parapsychologists are spiritualists and therefore implying their work is faith-based.

I had not thought the article as it is currently written makes an effort to link the two, other than using the term to identify a set of phenomena. What I was complaining about is that Neal seemed to think that the article should give the reader that impression. If he is right and the article does, then it is not neutral. Tom Butler (talk) 01:33, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Tom, you're distorting what I said. Dunno why you think I'm saying that parapsychologists are spiritualists. Psychical researchers like Richard Hodgson and Harry Price went around exposing spiritualist frauds. I wrote that in the article. They were the original debunkers. What I said is that psychical research was a response to claims made by spiritualists, not that it was spiritualism. If you didn't think the article was making that assertion, and I participated greatly in the writing of the article, why would you think I held that position? I never even implied that parapsychology was faith based spiritualism, much less said that the reader should get that impression. The reader should most certainly get the impression that psychical research arose as a response to claims made by spiritualists. That's a historical fact, not an opinion. The orgins of the SPR forming to investigate spiritualist claims is a matter of record. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 04:40, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

There is an undeniable link between spiritualism and parapsychology that should be discussed a bit more in the article, IMO. I see the analogy something like this: ufology:contactees::parapsychology:spiritualists. To somehow claim that ufologists were not influenced by contactees and to pretend that many of them were not in fact contactees would be misleading. Are all ufologists contactees? Certainly not. Are all parapsychologists spiritualists? Certainly not. But the connection is undeniable. ScienceApologist (talk) 02:09, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh yes, absolutely! A link not only worth mentioning, but one that should be emphasized! Post hoc ergo propter hoc! Or maybe it's just Cum hoc ergo propter hoc! But, Whatever!! It's a link, by God! That's what's important! Also we should mention the link betwen Parapsychologists and some other analogous items. Many were bottle babies. Many are homosexual, although many will deny it. There are a significant number of Democrats. I think that can't be overemphasized. These are undeniable links. (see for example Doctor Intelligence's seminal research into influences, analogies and links to pseudoscience -- particularly his devestating report on parapsychologists -- here. It all goes to prove what I have said from the beginning. The only good parapsychologist is a -- no wait, that was some other editor. Anyway, you get the idea. I think we need to be certain to link parapsychology to every half-assed belief out there. How dare those pitiful excuses for humanity dare call their activities 'science'? That's like Galileo seeking to demonstrate that the earth goes round the sun by using scientific methods. It's clear that any claims to the contrary must be squashed like little bugs, even if the squashing is done by false analogies and ad hominem attacks. The important thing, remember, is the squashing. --nemonoman (talk) 02:29, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, now that you've got that out of your system, maybe you'd like to join in the conversation for how to improve the article? ScienceApologist (talk) 02:46, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Sometimes the best doing is not doing. Especially when the doing is to suggest that the " undeniable link between spiritualism and parapsychology that should be discussed a bit more in the article". There would be a very easy method to improve the article if that little tidbit were introduced. And you represent yourself as an "NPOV-PUSHER" (caps not mine, for a change). With no particular reason other than to discredit and in fact demean, you propose to equate parapsychology and spiritualism. Tell me how that improves the article -- or anything else for that matter. To be more than fair, then the 'undeniable link' between alchemy and chemistry needs to be 'discussed a bit more' in that article, and between astrology and astronomy. Having decided that parapsychology is a pseudoscience, you will apparently be damned by any evidence to the contrary. You're the one 'improving' the article. Have a good time. --nemonoman (talk) 03:30, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Interesting to say "pretend." That is another one of those dismissive word choices.

I will say again, the "link between parapsychology and Spiritualism is that Spiritualists are reporting an effect and are able to demonstrate that to parapsychologists. The effect is what links them not the belief system called Spiritualism.

Now if you want to include a section about how people have experienced these phenomena and how parapsychology has selected their targets for study, I would think that would be of interest to the reader. That would also give you the opportunity to explain the disagreement amongst parapsychologists about lab verses field study.

A point to consider is that people writing history from the perspective of Spiritualists have claimed the scientists who study the phenomena as pioneers because they helped establish the "science" part of their religion. Virtually all of the histories I have read about Spiritualism leave the reader thinking that the scientists was part of Spiritualism, and while some did become Spiritualists, most as I understand the history, maintained an academic detachment. Tom Butler (talk) 16:53, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Still no fix for beginning

Most fields of science are well defined in the public's view. When I built my first telescope, no one would have said I was an astronomer. the correct term was amateur astronomer. Graduating from college with a degree in electronic engineering clearly does not make a person a physicist. Learning CPR does not make a person a doctor. But parapsychology is not as well understood by the public.

My wife and I were helping a historian friend who was participating in a British hauntings investigation TV program. The director told our friend that she was to be the parapsychologists and ask a lot of questions. Probably every city now has one or more ghost hunting clubs and ghost tourism is becoming big business. It is common for them to say that they are parapsychologists or at least practice it, yet the field of parapsychology as a whole tends to avoid anything to do with field study and with survival, including hauntings phenomena.

I realize that some people are phobic about parapsychology and its claim of being a science, but it is clear that the PA is distinguishing itself from the amateur parapsychologist by specifying that it is the "...scientific and scholarly study...". This article is about the scientific and scholarly approach and I see no reference to the amateur side of the subject.

I agree with Candy that "...seeks to demonstrate the existence and causes..." describes a belief system. In fact, no one seems to be seriously saying it is other than through innuendo. Tom Butler (talk) 17:51, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'll step in here and say that the first sentence (which I edited into current form, BTW) does not (in my view) describe a belief system.

Apparently I'm in the minority here by a focus on experimental parapsychology, and probably in the extreme minority as a former employee of the FRNM, PRF (and of Science Magazine where I a minor editor, if you really want to know). I mention the FRNM and PRF, however, because both groups used experiments that were reasonably in keeping with the scientific method. I also bumped around with other parapsychologists from other labs mentioned in the article. So I'm trying here to reconcile some of the comments above with my experience, much of which is personal. Just so you'll know my bias and background, which is a fondness for experimental parapsychology, and an awareness that in practice its methods and resulting conclusions often came up far short of acceptable standards in my view.

Now if I remember my Experimental Science 101 correctly (and it's been 80 years or more, or feels like) -- the starting point of an experiment is a Hypothesis. Then the experiment is designed in such a way as to demonstrate that the hypothesis is True or False. The method is to (attempt) to find a situation, ideally a repeatable situation, where all the factors associated with the hypothesis are put into play, and only those factors. Then the hypothesis is compared against the results -- true or false, up or down. Results are published, and the experimenter sits by the phone waiting for the Nobel committee to call.

Of course, my information is So Last Century -- perhaps the Scientific Method has changed?

Now it's true that in my experience, most scientists base their hypothesis on some belief -- a hunch, an idea extrapolated from earlier work, etc. This was true of the parapsychologists I met as well. Rhine's PK experiments offering money for successful results, casino style. That's a hypothesis based on a belief, it's true. But Rhine could have framed his hypothesis either way: Money will affect/Money won't affect the results. His experiments were designed to demonstrate, repeatably, the existence (and perhaps) the causes of the events. They were simple, clear, and repeatable, and followed the methods outlined in Experimental Science 101. Rhine told me that he believed his experiments demonstrated the existence of PK. Is that a "belief system". If someone believes his experiments demonstrate "cognitive dissonance" or "anxiety feedback mechanisms" or "visual pattern recognition anamolies", is that a belief system?

Experimental science, it seems to me, is at its heart designed to remove the belief from beliefs: to turn beliefs into facts, or into falsehoods. Every Tuesday I read a nice column in the New York Times. "Does tomato juice really remove skunk smell?" "Is the last swallow from the soda can really 98% saliva?" etc. Some widely held belief that the Times then affirms or debunks by reporting an experiment meant to prove or disprove. Must we delve into the belief system of the "Saliva Soda" experimenters?. Aren't scientific experiments an expression of a discipline that seeks to demonstrate that a hypotheis is right -- or wrong -- or wrong using the scientific method? And aren't we simply saying that parapsychology focuses its light on the phenomena that apparently cannot be explained without a psychic theory, however ill-conceived or underdeveloped?

I really like ScienceApologist's user page which suggests that he would be squashing the initial science of Galileo. I can see parallels between parapsychology as 'belief system' and with Galileo -- who at that time was holder of a belief system? Also in the initial forays into sub-atomic structural theory and quantum mechanics. Or for that matter string theory, which proposes, last I checked, that its hypotheses can not ever be demonstrated experimentally.

The point being, that in many cases, parapsychology is good science, and as good as in any other discipline, and it is not an insult to traditional areas of study to include parapsychology as a science. Perhaps these scientists are proving, by their meagre results, that phenomena widely espoused by hoi polloi simply don't exist. But scientists also sought to demonstrate the existence of The Ether, and didn't. It was science, and their failure to demonstrate their 'belief system' led to greater understanding. --nemonoman (talk) 13:07, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

So anyway...

I'm out of here to work on other projects. If anyone needs anything, for example clarifications on what was written during the FA process, I can be reached by my talk page. I don't keep articles I'm not directly working on in my watchlist. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 18:11, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Context edits

Ryan, I have "but a few European universities continue to offer them." That is, graduate courses. I don't know the number. Maybe you could check, or if you have an exact number that would be great. I don't know whether "a few" is an accurate way to describe it. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 20:57, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I dunno either. It would be good to get a handle on this, preferably from more reliable sources than skeptic and parapsychology websites, and get a clear characterisation of the amount and type of training and research currently happening in the body of the article. Then we can summarise it in the lede. Needs to hit the body in a little detail first I think, before it can be summarised briefly in the lede. Ryan Paddy (talk) 21:53, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Right. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 00:22, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

200 colleges and universities

We need a reference that 200 colleges and universities offer courses on parapsychology. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:39, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and the 200 courses thing is sourced to <ref>http://www.randi.org/encyclopedia/parapsychology.html ''An Encyclopedia of Claims, Frauds, and Hoaxes of the Occult and Supernatural '' entry on Parapsychology Copyright (C) 1995-2007 James Randi</ref>. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 01:54, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think James Randi is reliable for the courses at colleges and universities. He's not a registrar or a higher-ed consultant. ScienceApologist (talk) 03:01, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Randi is a pretty unreliable source all around. If there are 200 colleges teaching courses, I'd love to know what they are. --Annalisa Ventola _{(Talk | Contribs)} 02:14, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Ghostbusters

Though perhaps not relevant for the lead, it is undeniable that a considerable attention to parapsychology is due in no small part to Ghostbusters fame. I think we should keep it in there.

ScienceApologist (talk) 23:39, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Puh-lleeaasse. This factoid has little reason to be placed in the article at all, and certainly not this prominently. Unless there some overriding consensus to keep it in, I will remove. How about "The Haunting" or "13 Ghosts" while you're at it?? --nemonoman (talk) 00:42, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Seconded, thank you. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 01:54, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Those movies are not nearly as famous, Nemonoman. Ghostbusters was the top-grossing film of 1984. I am lobbying to keep it in because it is indicated that the popularization of parapsychology came from this movie in the reference. I'll RfC is if you like ScienceApologist (talk) 03:01, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Not a cogent argument. ScienceApologist (talk) 03:02, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

The consensus was to cover only academic parapsychology, not popular stuff. This is a longstanding consensus. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 21:13, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

You'll need to reference this. Besides, academic parapsychology is what the movie is about. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:02, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Puuuuuuuhhhhhhhhllllllleeeeeeaaaaaassssse! If anyone else had made the entry or this comment, I'd have assumed stupidity. You have made numerous useful edits to the article, so I will assume good faith. What I'm tyring NOT to assume is that you are Making A Point. That's not the kind of editor you are, is it???--nemonoman (talk) 02:26, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

There is no discussion of 'parapsychology in fiction' or 'make believe parapsychologists in popular culture' in the article, so what is this doing in the lead? --Annalisa Ventola _{(Talk | Contribs)} 02:10, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

This is seen in other similar articles. The popularization of electronic voice phenomenon is indicated by its presence in certain movies (especially White Noise (film)). I agree that we could maybe find a better place for it. Maybe in the history section? ScienceApologist (talk) 14:44, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Please provide a citation for the "popularization" based on Ghostbusters. I can find no evidence of anybody saying "Thanks to Ghostbusters...blah, blah". This has no business being in the lead of this FA. You haven't established consensus. I'm removing it unless there's more support.--nemonoman (talk) 02:22, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Read the citation. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:44, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

It looks like consensus is to just get rid of the Ghostbusters thing that the IP put in. Especially per Annalisa. The former consensus was not to cover the bits of pop culture which call on the name "parapsychology," but are not academic- any more than other articles on academic fields do. The IP isn't here to defend the edit, apparently. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 03:24, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Nah. There is no "consensus" here, only the false claims of consensus made by the parapsychology cheerleading squad. In the spirit of WP:TAG TEAM, I say, let's wait for someone who isn't on your team to chime in. I'm more than willing to entertain the notion that the sentence should be moved to elsewhere in the article, but its complete removal seems dubious to me. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:44, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Should likely stay. The claim is sourced and relevant. JoshuaZ (talk) 14:41, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

That the film concerned parapsychologists is easily sourced. That it increased the "popularization" of parapsychology is not. If you have this book to hand, please provide a relevant quote or 2 related to how it has popularized Parapsychology. I'd do this myself, but for some reason my public library has not seen fit to purchase, and the cheapest copy on amazon is $72+shipping. --nemonoman (talk) 15:56, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Must be a wonderful volume. Tell me, how did this author manage to establish the increase in parapsychology's popularity less than a year after the film's release? I'm assuming that you are only citing that the movie was about parapsychology, and absent some actual quotes to the contrary have so adapted that wonderful and notable lead paragraph sentence. --nemonoman (talk) 16:14, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

PS: I do think this bit applies: WP:V here, where it says as a reference "When there is dispute about whether the article text is fully supported by the given source, direct quotes from the source and any other details requested should be provided as a courtesy to substantiate the reference" --nemonoman (talk) 18:00, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, who added the source? Presumably they have the book and can give us the quote they were using as the source. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:07, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I have requested more information on the talk page of User:24.199.92.132 who created the entry. As it stands, without some specific information about how it popularized Parapsychology, the sentence is a factoid, and non-notable, IMO. --nemonoman (talk) 20:19, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not really on anyone's team, I just have this article on my watch list and had seen this argument bubbling. I don't think including the tidbit about Ghostbusters helps the reader or enhances a treatment of the subject. It doesn't tell us more about parapsychology; it seems more like an appeal to stereotypes, which isn't what encyclopedias are supposed to do. ScienceApologists userpage rightly describes wikipedia as a sober reference work and a stifler of free-wheeling, imaginative edits. This is an example of the latter in my estimate. It is best left to a blog, or if there are strong sources--as in, the opinion of a lead crusader against parapsychology, maybe it would be useful in a sentence to establish that person's orientation. Two cents.--Asdfg12345 17:17, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

The Ghostbusters material doesn't really fit into the artcle. If I were editing this article I would delete it per wp:lead because the Lead is for summarizing the sections. There is no Ghostbusters section, nor should there be. Raggz (talk) 10:15, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

A film sohuld certainly not be in the lead, but seems fine for mentioning once in the main article. But ONLY if it can be verifed that the sources really said it "popularised" parapsych. Just having parapsychologists as characters is not enough to make it notable for this article - many films have this. We don't (I hope) mention films like A Beautiful Mind in the Mathmatics article, even if it won oscars. So remove until someone check the source.Yobmod (talk) 11:18, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Let's get some sources

This article has a lot to say about this subject. They frame parapsychology as being popularized in part by films like Poultergeist (film) due to the fact that the skeptic in those films is made to confront an existence of the paranormal through parapsychology. Likewise, Ghostbusters is referenced as a "skeptically supporting" film since it is a comedy. Weirdly enough, Dan Akroyd, the principle writer, was a fairly staunch supporter of parapsychology as a science and, in fact, read parapsychology journals. This stuff, I think, is directly relevant to this subject: at least enough for its own section in the article. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:00, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh this is priceless. This article mentions Ghostbusters in passing 4 times, and provides a wrong date (1988). I'm going to add "Doctor T and the Women" to the Lead of the Gynecology article, Caddyshack to the Lead of Golf, 28 Days Later to the lead of ... oh forget it. Other than to provide another opportunity to be snarky, is this trip really relevant? Some people actually worked hard on this article.--nemonoman (talk) 16:07, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

If people would like to go to mediation on this FA article, we can do that. I assure you that this would not go over well. Let's take out the Ghostbusters thing, and stop this.

However, if you think that merely sourcing something is good enough to allow it into an FA article- I have a lot of stuff to put in. There is a difference between sourcing and having something be notable enough for inclusion. JoshuaZ, do you really want to be known for, to use an analogy, putting the movie Jurassic Park in the lead of the Evolution article? I don't think this is something you really want to do. I don't think anyone mediating will be unable to get that analogy. POV tag for now. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 21:16, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm not into the tit-for-tat rhetoric placed in above, but I do think that some idea of the popularization of parapsychology has a place in this article. I'm willing to say that it may not belong in the lead as-is. I don't think that comparing this discipline to evolutionary biology as Martin is doing makes any sense at all, but if we compare the article to electronic voice phenomenon I think we can make some parallels. EVP was popularized in part by the movie White Noise which is mentioned in the lead. It's pretty clear from the sources I'm reading that parapsychology was popularized in a large part by mention in movies/television shows. It certainly doesn't get much attention from non-skeptics in the academic communities, and since we are charged with establishing notability in some way early on in every article, I think that some mention in the lead of its popular conceptualization is warranted.

I think that way forward may be first to write in a workshop a new section on how parapsychology is perceived by non-scientists including the movie-going public since we have some (what I would describe as pretty good) sources on it. I think, in particular, the idea evinced in the source I mention that parapsychology gets rutinized as being depicted as follows: "[S]keptics confronted with angry ghosts must ultimately turn to the "deviant" science of parapsychology for help with the entities that are presented as very real within the narrative."

ScienceApologist (talk) 01:33, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Protection

I've protected this article, because I've noticed a slow, creeping, but definite edit war. Now, who wants to show me their take on the situation.--Tznkai (talk) 22:57, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

My take is that there is no need for protection at the present time: in fact, I think you are overreaching. Most of the editors of this article have been quite careful to note their comments and concerns as changes are made. In some cases the discussion is heated, and often the outcome of these heated discussions is a better synthesis of ideas. --nemonoman (talk) 00:35, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Over reacting might be what you're going for. And the protection automatically expires in 90 hours or so, but you can always ask an admin or WP:RFPP if you come to a consensus with others that this page doesn't need to be protected. I however, will not be available tomorrow.--Tznkai (talk) 01:18, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I need to apologize to Tznkai. I have just now followed some links through various arbcoms, RFC, RFAs, etc., etc., and it is like walking through a war zone in Bosnia. Can't people just get along?? Based on the history between these two, of which I was not aware, I understand better your determination to bust in when you did. I apologize for saying that you overreached. --nemonoman (talk) 19:38, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

For the past years, possibly since the article was created, it has been subject to actions by editors whose only reason for editing is to discredit the subject. This is another attempt. It goes against the former consensus not to cover the pop culture which sometimes uses the name "parapsychology." That consensus grew out of the debate prior to the ArbCom on the Paranormal, in which we educated the Arbitrators concerning the difference between parapsychology as, for example, claimed by Sylvia Browne and ghost hunters, and academic parapsychology with its hundred plus years of research (which is quite upset by pseudoscientists claiming the name).

This is a FA. It should not be subject to this kind of thing, and there should be some neutral admins willing to keep it on their watchlist. They should intervene before protection is needed, and possibly hand out some warnings. I stress neutral, because there are certain admins such as JzG who are anything but neutral. So I'm glad you got here in the end. I hope you don't think this is a legit debate: it's not, and if you look through the article history you will see the pattern. There are of course some aspects which are legit, and till just recently, we were handling them fine. For example, whether we have a good enough source for the statistic that about 200 colleges and universities offer courses on parapsychology- Ryan and I were talking about that.

My thanks also to nemonoman for stepping in. BTW, that isn't the FA version you reverted to.

Let me repeat: we shouldn't have to go through these things. Disruptive editing should not be allowed at this article. Neutral admins should be here who will make sure that changes are discussed and consensus reached first.

Also note, if you go over the article history, why this kind of thing keeps happening: there are aspects of the article which have been edit warred in, and one of them at least is still there (email me if you want to know where, or my talk page). If success at this is possible, why not do it? ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 01:25, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that this commentary is especially helpful. ScienceApologist (talk) 01:34, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I really appreciate page-protection as it was getting difficult to get myself heard over the hullabaloo. I think a page protection might force other users to actually sit-down and talk rather than engage in rhetorical flourish that we see above or below. Thank you, Tznkai. ScienceApologist (talk) 01:34, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

For the past years, possibly since the article was created, it has been subject to actions by editors whose only reason for editing is to inflate the subject. Guy (Help!) 08:15, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll note that when the article was start-page Featured Article, numerous requests for protection and semi-protection were made and rejected. So I don't get why this action has been taken now, and I'd like an explanation from The Protector that explains how he determined the "creeping" edit war that motivated him to act. --nemonoman (talk) 12:38, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

You won't get that explained on wiki, but don't give up on the article (-: ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 12:49, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

This is a post by someone accused of being a User:Davkal sockpuppet

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

My view of the situation is this: the article reached it's featured article status in November 07 primarily through the hard work of those editors Guy criticizes above, and by the conspicuous non-involvement of one editor - ScienceApologist. Had SA been involved in the article at that time it couldn't have become featured, because SA has no idea how to write a neutral article about any aspect of the paranormal - his views on the subject, which he takes to be neutral, are, to use the political analogy, somewhere to the right of Adolf Hitler. That is, SA hates the paranormal, and he hates parapsychology, and he also hates anyone who doesn't hate parapsychology and the paranormal. And since this featured article gives a fairly reasonable account of parapsychology without using phrases such as "stinking pile of horse manure" (one of Guy's I think), SA hates this article and hates even more the fact that it has been featured. As a result he has spent much of the time since the article became featured trying to insert nasty, snarky and dismissive points into the article. On almost every occasion his contributions have been rejected as unsourced, unverifiable, encyclopedic or just plain wrong. On many occasions SA has miscited material (e.g., Austin - see first archive for details), or has introduced outrageously poor sources (e.g., Biology Cabinet and their swallow eradication instructions - again, see first archive) in a desperate attempt to bolster his opinions with sources and get them into the article. On other occasions he will cite some obscure source that no one can see (e.g, Layton - still in the article BTW) and then refuse to cite the relevant passage that supposedly backs up his claim (various requests to see the text from Layton have been made for over six months and still no text has been forthcoming). A similar point could be made about the Californai education standards document – what does it say? And this is the situation right now with the Ghostbusters non-starter. That is, given SA's view, he thinks it would be really good if he could have a nice prominent claim at the end of the lead which attributes the popularity of parapsychology to a comedy film. It is of no concern to SA that it is not clear what the sentence in question means (e.g., bring to the attention of the public, yield a 25% increase in university admissions for parapsychology courses, or a 25% increase in courses offered, or some other thing etc. etc.), and it is of no concern to him whether or not the source actually makes one of these or any other point. No, SA just wants that sentence in there and who cares if it really comes from the source or not. After all, it's SA's opinion and it therefore must be right - even if nobody else is clever enough to know this or to have written it.

Now, -deep breath-, all of this will be dismissed as a rant against SA. Surely all SA is doing is trying to improve Wikipedia - trying to ensure that the public is not misled by the claims of pseudoscientists and the like. Maybe so. Maybe everything I am saying above reflects my own skewed views and SA really is the truth and the light. But hey, this article is featured. The Wiki community has marked out this article as one of its best. There are thousands of others that don't come anywhere close to the standard of th is article. In the interests of good faith, and in the certain knowledge that we are not best placed to see or judge or own biases and/or (lack of) neutrality, let us acknowledge the judgment of the community as regards the quality of this article and leave it well alone. Aeronbrau (talk) 13:48, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Without commenting on any of the bits concerning other editors, it is true that we, especially Nealparr, Annalisa, Wikidudeman (Nealparr is a skeptic, Wikidudeman an extreme skeptic) and myself (to some extent) brought the article to FA status. The discussion of the sources and the Ghostbuster bit also seems quite accurate in terms of objective substance. I have repeatedly asked for a quote of the California Studies in Science Education document (per WP:RS), and none has been provided. Since other sources have turned out not to say what they were purported to say, I have serious doubts about that one. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 14:43, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

(Undent)Stop removing big chunks of commentary, then restoring it. You are effectively edit warring on a talk page, which is not only bad, but pointless. Actions based on sockpuppetry accusations are to be handled after the sockpuppetry is confirmed.--Tznkai (talk) 15:07, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Funny how one sockpuppet can bring discussion to a screeching halt, isn't it? Anyway, now that he's banned maybe we can start having a conversation that was supposed to happen while protection was in place. ScienceApologist (talk) 12:36, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Psychic

The Psychic article is something of a sister article of this one, which encompasses pop-culture aspects of the paranormal, while Parapsychology is the academic scientific discipline which studies some aspects of same. People here might want to look in on that article as well; perhaps room could be found there for something like Ghostbusters. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 00:54, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

There is no consensus in the reliable sources that parapsychology enjoys the status as a true academic scientific discipline. Many discount it entirely as sourced in our article. Since WP:NPOV rules supreme, I think it is important for us to recognize that a truly excellent article on parapsychology will not make a bald statement like it is an "academic scientific discipline" nor should acceptance of this be a litmus test for prose. 128.59.169.46 (talk) 21:28, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Media coverage

There are two articles I read recently (in French) which are from about ten years ago which speak to the general disgust that the French intellectual establishment has for parapsychology:

Me´heust, B. (1996). Episte´mologiquement correct. Alliage, 28.
Me´heust, B. (1997). De´fense (para)normale. Pour la Science, 236, 7.

There is an article from a parapsychology proponent compares media coverage of parapsychology in France and the UK:

[8]. I think this is highly relevant to this article.

ScienceApologist (talk) 21:39, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Point that needs inclusion: Parapsychologists likely use scientific sounding language to gain respect

[A] proponent may seek to use
"scientific" terminology and metaphors in order to solidify the position of certain parapsychological claims. Either way, the use of metaphor is essential to this rhetoric. It will be seen later that certain metaphors are probably
employed precisely because they resonate with the current models in scientific research.

I think this needs to be referenced in the article. From http://hopelive.hope.ac.uk/psychology/para/METAPH1.pdf

ScienceApologist (talk) 22:04, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

That quote misses the point of the actual paper, which is about the "construction" of the experience and the reliance on metaphors to describe it. It's an examination of the various metaphors used by parapsychologists to explain psi. Not necessarily this paper alone, but the topic it's covering, is what I personally find so fascinating about the paranormal. The paranormal, whatever it actually is or isn't, is a constructed experience, a "text". By "text", I mean the hermeneutic use as 'something to be interpreted', such as literature, art, and even experiences. It's a story. Your typical ghost or UFO encounter is just as much a constructed "text" as it is an actual report of something that happened. When describing the encounter, the experiencer (necessarily) relies on metaphors, personal and cultural. The experience, whatever it originally was, becomes literary by way of telling the story. It's poetic. There's a meaning to extract from the constructed text. If I were to ever write a book on paranormal experiences (were that I not so busy already), it would be from the premise that literary theory and hermeneutics are the most valid approaches to examining the paranormal.

In any case, the point of the quote pulled above is already covered in the article. It's the view that parapsychologists are pseudoscientists, and it's already there. That's what pseudoscience is -- posing as science -- and that's what pseudoscientists do -- pull concepts from science and apply them to non-science, ie. draw metaphorical connections.

But, again, it misses the bigger picture of what the paper is about, something a lot more interesting. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 04:25, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm aware of what you find interesting. What I find interesting and what is NOT addressed in this article is the point that parapsychologists use the trappings of science to lend their discipline credibility it cannot otherwise enjoy. It's very much like the snake oil salesman hawking wares at a county fair using all sorts of scientific jargon to confuse the audience. What is fascinating about this exchange and the further developments of the paper is that parapsychologists adapt their explanations as science changes. So while initially they were convinced that psi was a "force", as the concept of "force" became more or less abandoned by physics they moved on to quantum quackery explanations. This is clearly outlined in the paper. ScienceApologist (talk) 12:39, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Look, SA. The article acknowledges the pseudoscience label. Do you really want to make a bfd about all the ways that pseudoscience manifests itself? Surely parapsychologists not only use scientific terminology, but many other behaviors designed to lure the gullible. Many have 'Degrees' from 'Universities'. They publish 'Research' in 'Journals' run by 'Associations'. Some 'Try to Appear Intelligent' by 'Speaking clearly' and 'Not Drooling'. It's all part of the Racket, and it's just a damn shame how rich and respected all those parapsychologists have become by fooling the gullible.

In my opinion (and of course, by voicing my opinion here, I'm clearly a Guller, or a Gullee), once you've said "Pseudoscience" you've said it all. Unless you specifically believe that there are specific manifestations of New and Different Means of Gulling the Public Unique the Parapsychologist as Pseudoscientist? Like for example, that they actually do research and follow the scientific method in a cynical attempt to pretend they are actual scientists?

Are you actually saying that their attempt to be scientific is the problem? That it gives the discipline the "credibility it would not otherwise enjoy" and that they need to be called out for it? Jeez, that's a tough nut. They can use the scientific method and be scientists PROVIDED that ALL their results prove the non-existence of any phenomena they are exploring. Science if and only if all reported results are negative, pseudoscience if otherwise. Are you serious??--nemonoman (talk) 13:27, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

It's clear that parapsychologists think that they are doing science. Many of them are prototypical true believers. However, it is also undeniable that their "discipline" is an inexact replica of the science they are trying to do: most of them depart in enormous ways from the incredulity that is characterized by dispassionate scientific investigation into wild speculation. Whether we think they have been given a bad wrap or not is beside the point: the references clearly indicate that they are on the fringes of academia and are gaining in notoriety through popular culture rather than through legitimate reference work or academic discussion. Different people have different opinions as to whether this is a good thing or not and as to why exactly it is happening, but that this "thing" exists is all that concerns us and it is the point that is not well articulated in the current article. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:00, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

(undent)This conversation is lengthy, but I am fairly disinterested in it. What content, in short concise sentences, needs to be inserted, removed, or modified in the article?--Tznkai (talk) 20:02, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

1) It is highly doubtful that the sentence "Some science educators and scientists have called the subject pseudoscience." is sourced. It's sourced to some obvioulsy biased blog, and also to Studies in Science Education something we've asked many times to have a quote from. We never got that quote, probably because it doesn't really say that. It's also highly suspect because there are probably a couple hundred courses in parapsychology offered. It may not be notable in the context of parapsychology as a whole. At the very least, it needs to be put in proper context.

2)I just reverted the Ghostbusters thing, but a) pop culture was left out by consensus and b) I doubt the source says what it's supposed to say.

3) People need to stop trying to put things in the lead, when they aren't in the article.

4) People need to stop trying to insert things based upon their heavy POV. And then edit warring the changes in. It is not as if we didn't have skeptical editors working on the FA version of this article. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 23:11, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

As an example of how sources are abused, here is the full quote from above:

This very brief examination of some of the metaphors used in conceptualizing parapsychology and paranormal
experience has shown that rhetoric is employed to distance the phenomena and the subject from both science and common sense. It might also be argued that the opposite situation may arise where a proponent may seek to use "scientific" terminology and metaphors in order to solidify the position of certain parapsychological claims. Either way, the use of metaphor is essential to this rhetoric. It will be seen later that certain metaphors are probably employed precisely because they resonate with the current models in scientific research. I would like to extend this and suggest that an examination of the metaphors implicit in descriptions of psychical phenomena can usefully
illuminate the ways in which these events have been conceptualized.

Emphasis added. It's called cherry picking to take one bit of a quote and put it up here, when the source makes the opposite point just as much or more. I think a discussion of the manner in which rhetoric is employed to distance parapsychology from science, and the opposite, would be a good thing. Except, as was the former consensus, it would be never-ending. Also, I don't think there are enough good sources.

Here is another quote from that source:

James Randi (1975), in his book on Uri Geller, uses a religious metaphor when he refers to the search for the
holy "grail of ESP." By describing ESP as a holy relic that is mythical, precious, and wholly unattainable, he provides the sense of a fruitless crusade. The association with religion rather than science is reinforced, thus hammering home the idea that parapsychology is far removed from scientific orthodoxy and owes its origins more to
metaphysics and faith than empiricism and reality.

However, you don't see me coming in here to this FA article, and saying "I think it's important to discuss the rhetorical methods which opponents of parapsychology use to discredit it, and I can cherry pick a quote to support it, so I'll put it right in the lead and edit war it in." Sorry to rant a little, but this has been going on for years. If admins are ready to take some notice, I want to lay things out. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 23:33, 15 September 2008 (UTC)