Talk:Psychic/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

College student poll

Martinphi seems to insist on inserting this piece of information:

A 2006 poll showed that college seniors and graduate students have more paranormal beliefs than college freshmen.

This may be relevant to "popular culture", but it certainly has no relevance to the science section. What students believe or do not believe and why is an interesting question, but it is independent from the reception within science, and more specifically, within the sciences of physics, biology and psychology. Moreover, the referenced website is rense.com, a source of conspiracy theories; it would be helpful to at least provide a precise reference --Eloquence* 07:46, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the poll was in the "Controversy and skepticism" section, which wasn't a "science section." You only recently added a "science" section, which did not include that reference. This is not a scientific article in a scientific journal, so the information is perfectly applicable to this informational encyclopedic entry. Perhaps a better reference can be found. Please tag such entries with the {{fact}} tag instead of outright deletion. It is the polite and recommended way to handle such entries. I know it's difficult to have the patience such a course takes, but I think we all ought to try and abide by that - unless of course the entry violates WP:BLP or presents a legal issue for Wikipedia. Additionally, the section you deleted titled "Controversy and skepticism" was an excellent addition to the article and should be put back. Dreadlocke ☥ 21:01, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Correction, the poll followed the phrase "The issue of whether or not psychic abilities are real is controversial within science." This is a non sequitur. If anywhere, this statement belongs in the "popular culture" section, where I've moved it. I don't doubt the claim, mind you, but if it is to be cited as a web reference, we need a better one than rense.com, ideally directly to the survey itself.--Eloquence* 22:02, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree, a better reference should be found. Dreadlocke ☥ 00:40, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Fate Magazine is the actual source, and it is indeed a WP:RS. I've added the citation. Dreadlocke ☥ 21:48, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

"While only 23 percent of the freshman quizzed professed a belief toward paranormal concepts, the figures rose to 31 percent for college seniors and 34 percent for graduate students. The complete results of the survey may be found in the January-February issue of The Skeptical Inquirer." Perhaps we can find an online version in the Skeptical Inquirer. Definitely a RS. Dreadlocke ☥ 21:53, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

If one reads the article in rense, and investigates what it says, it gets even better. One of the people who set up the poll is Bryan Farha, associate professor and chair, Department of Behavioral Studies and Counseling Psychology at Oklahoma City University. He regularly writes for CSI (formerly CSICOP) and SI! This poll is also mentioned (and well sourced) in the Wikipedia article, "Level of support for evolution": level of public support. That's sourcing, man. Dreadlocke ☥ 22:07, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

With this "newly discovered" involvement with CSI, it's now related to Scientific investigation - even if it's just a poll. Which suggests it is no longer just a "popular culture" reference. Dreadlocke ☥

Yes. . . but these scientists are investigating popular attitudes, not the question of whether psychic is real or not. Puddytang 05:22, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Evidence

(1) There is no evidence that the existence of psychics is accepted by even a tiny percentage of academic faculty. The sentence, "The issue of whether or not psychic abilities are real is controversial within science" is completely without merit. Self-appointed "paranormal" scientists do not count. If someone wants to put this back in, they're going to have to show significant evidence of belief in psychics by faculty at REAL academic institutions.

(2) "evidence for the existence of psychic phenomena is not universally accepted as valid" I think you're going to be hard pressed to find nearly anyone in academia beyond a few fringe figures here and there that believe this stuff is valid. "universally" is completely the wrong word to use.

(3) "many" is also an incorrect qualifier. Skeptics by definition believe that psychics are bogus.

I therefore revert. -- Mgunn 07:28, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Psychic phenomena are studied by parapsychologists, and the Parapsychological Association has been a member of the AAAS since, I believe, 1969. There are peer-reviewed journals of parapsychology. I'll revert. Please go for consensus here. I notice you don't have anything on your user page, so you're probably a new user. So, welcome to Wikipedia (: !

For an unofficial (and unfinished) intro to editing paranormal pages, go here. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 09:54, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

You still don't have any documentation or citation to support the existence of psychics. The claim that the scientific community is torn over the existence of psychics is an extraordinary one. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. -- Mgunn 17:30, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

"The claim that the scientific community is torn over the existence of psychics is an extraordinary one."

Not at all. If the PA is a member of the AAAS, and the PA supports the existence of psi, then science is torn. This is not an extraordinary claim. However, that template is simply something one expects on these articles, especially because there are many people here who have strong opinions without having throughly researched the topic. I see no problem with it. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 20:19, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Can you get a PHD in parapsychology? Are there parapsychology faculty at any prestigious University? Also, it is a complete illogical leap to go from "There exists an organization with the title "Parapsychological Association" to "The scientific community is split over hte existence of psychics." I'm going to revert to my version until you can come up with real research to back these assertions. -- Mgunn 22:51, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I suspect that one problem we're facing is that "controversial" must be quantified — controversial according to whom, exactly? Whoever "they" are, a source is, of course, necessary. (Wikipedia:Verifiability says "The obligation to provide a reliable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not with those seeking to remove it.") One could say the issue is "controversial among scientists" (or "controversial in the field of [psychology, physics, neuroscience, etc.]") and then cite a source. Meanwhile, whether parapsychology is a valid scientific field is a matter of some controversy (see Parapsychology#Status of the field), and I'm not sure that the PA's affiliation with the AAAS means there's a controversy about psi "in science". Perhaps we should simply say "The Parapsychology Association has been affiliated with the American Association for the Advancement of Science sine 1969" and let the user decide whether that indicates the presence of a controversy in science. — Elembis (talk) 01:06, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi Elembis, I think this issue can be reasonably cleared up. The only way the statement could be incorrect is if a) parapsychology is not a science- but this issue is cleared up for Wikipedia by membership in the AAAS. b), that there were no scientists within or without the field, who were debating it. The reference to scientist Ray Hyman should take care of that objection.

So, parapsychology is a science, and other scientists debate its claims. They have controversy, and that's all we need to know. We don't need a source which says, in so many words "Parapsychology is controversial within science." Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 01:58, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

P.S. And it doesn't qualify as OR to say "these people are debating each other," (ie. the subject is controversial) when the debate is cited. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 02:01, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Focus

Let's focus on this sentence, "The issue of whether or not psychic abilities are real is controversial within science."

Whether parapsychology is a member of AAAS, is irrelevent to the truth or falsity of the sentence above. (1) How many members of the PA are faculty members at a real university? (2) What evidence is there that PA members believe "psychic abilities are real." (3) Is there any PA research showing psychic abilities are real? Is this research cited in an affirmative manner by real academics at real research institutions?

For the sentence in question to be true, you need to show that approximately more than 15% of scientists think "psychic abilities are real." It might be borderline reasonable if you can show 10% of scientists think "psychic abilities are real." Anything less than that, and you don't have a controversy, you have a fringe view.

I'm going to revert to my version until you can cook up some evidence, and please don't edit war. -- Mgunn 04:15, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, this objection is original research on your part. If you have anything to back it up, please provide links. In the meantime, wait for consensus before making this controversial change again. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 06:13, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

You have a controversial statement and it is uncited. It is not more complicated than that. -- Mgunn 06:40, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

First of all it is generally best to use a system of consensus when making changes to an article, especially when you are new, otherwise you could come across as a troll. As far as your points about controversy I will try and clarify; there are very few polls of scientist's opinions of psi, but what we do have demonstrates support above the levels you mention. For example a survey of more than 1,100 college professors in the United States found that 55% of natural scientists, 66% of social scientists (excluding psychologists), and 77% of academics in the arts, humanities, and education believed that ESP is either an established fact or a likely possibility. The comparable figure for psychologists was only 34%. Moreover, an equal number of psychologists declared ESP to be an impossibility, a view expressed by only 2% of all other respondents (Wagner &h; Monnet, 1979). [1] As this is an old survey I have looked into more modern examples, and found a 2006 poll by researchers Bryan Farha of Oklahoma City University and Gary Steward of University of Central Oklahoma, that showed that college seniors and graduate students have more paranormal beliefs than college freshmen, demonstrating that education and scientific awareness does not diminish a supportive view of psi. [2] So from the available polls it would seem that academic and scientific belief roughly matches the general public level of approximately 57% (with the exception of psychology). [3] As far as the level of scientists supporting psi, this is clearly not an issue, for example, there is Nobel prize winner Brian Josephson who works at Cambridge University, which is widely considered one of the best if not the best universities in the UK, Cambridge also has Rupert Sheldrake on its staff. Other Nobel prize winning supporters include Kary Mullis and Wolfgang Pauli. There is also Daryl Bem at Cornell University and eminent and respected scientists such as Hans Eysenck and Robert G Jahn, the list could go on. As far as evidence there are many sources you may wish to review, I would suggest reading the parapsychology article and following up on the papers mentioned there. That article also deals with the criticisms of the field and shows that is fair to say the area is controversial, although I would be happy to see this changed to something that reflects the levels of support the area also enjoys. - Solar 12:49, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Solar, that does make it very clear, though the objections raised by Mgunn really don't have anything to do with the sentence in contention (as I said above). Whether or not there's controversy doesn't relate to whether there's high level support, etc. etc.

Mgunn is not really new. He just hasn't altered his talk page. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 00:06, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi Martinphi, it was more of a general reply to Mgunn's points including the earlier points 1, 2 and 3, which are all clearly false, including might I add the third one "Skeptics by definition believe that psychics are bogus", in fact the real definition of a skeptic is one who maintains an agnostic position, a position of doubt, a skeptic that simply dismisses all psychics as bogus is a pseudo or pathological skeptic. - Solar 17:04, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Just for the Record...

I think User:Mgunn pretty much has the right of things here. "the issue of whether or not psychic abilities are real is controversial within science" is an amazingly bold statement to make and I find it hard to believe that even a minority of scientists would have confidence in the existence of parapsychology. I really think that statment should be removed if (respectable) sources cannot be provided. – Lantoka (talk) 05:58, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, there is a field called parapsychology, populated by scientists most of whom have confidence in the existence of psi phenomena. I think you would find it very hard indeed to find a scientist who would be willing to say that parapsychology did not exist. The sentence says there is controversy. Within science. Period. Nothing else. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 06:46, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

No, you misunderstand. I don't debate the existence of the field of parapsychology (which even publishes its own academic journal, if I recall correctly). I've read the parapsychology article and I don't have any disagreements there. What I do have a hard time believing is that even a minority of scientists have confidence in the fact that the parapsychology exists (e.g. concepts of psi, telepathy, etc.). Sure, a scientific field exists to attempt to empirically test phenomena related to this concept, but that doesn't mean that even a minority of scientists believe in the existance of such phenomena.

Which is why I disagree with the statement above. It implies that there is serious controversy within the scientific community about the existence of paranormal phenomena. And based on everything I've ever heard or read, it seems to have been pretty thoroughly debunked by the scientific community at this point. The parapsychology article even talks about how scientists testing parapsychological phenomena are ostracized by the rest of the scientific community. The prevailing view seems to be that it is pseudoscience, and if that is true, then there isn't really significant controversy after all. – Lantoka (talk) 08:04, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but no one said anything about the size of the controversy (I may change this, just to keep people from complaining about it, but it is technically accurate as it stands). You should read Dean Radin's books if you're really interested. Strange as it may seem, parapsychology has gotten stronger and stronger, especially in the last 20 or 30 years. The skeptics keep helping them to design better and better tests, but the effects don't go away (they do decrease very slightly -"the decline effect"-, but in a manner similar to other conventional effects- see Radin). Even Ray Hyman, who is the most educated skeptic (rare in skepticism), has been reduced to calling for replications, or saying that Well, even if you can find an effect, can you really call it psi? So read up! There is a lot of reliable info about psi which has not made it to Wikipedia yet, possibly because no one here seems to have a membership in the peer-reviewed journals. Also read Solar's post above. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 08:39, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Links

i added a new link after getting consensus so on the Talk:Sylvia Browne page. Smith Jones 02:00, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I removed both links. There was not consensus on that page, there was just the suggestion that it might belong more here than there. Honestly, both seem to meet WP:EL#Links_normally_to_be_avoided. That is, they have objectionable amounts of advertising (I'm getting popup warnings on Firefox and without Adblock, adverts are everywhere), and do not appear to be even semi-reliable. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 03:52, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

NPOV

HEY! just because the adverts are no treliable that doesnt meant hat that article is not nrreliable? Smith Jones 17:09, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

ALSO, IF YOU CLICK ON THE LINKS SOME WILL VANISH. Smith Jones 19:44, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Huh? And why are you yelling? – Lantoka (talk) 20:46, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

just click on the damn links —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smith Jones (talk • contribs) 14:10, 18 February 2007

Parapsychology is not a field of science.

The article states "in the field of parapsychology is that certain types of psychic phenomena such as psychokinesis, telepathy, and precognition are well established scientifically." This is patently false. Parapsychology is not a field of science. It could be loosely called a "field of study" but it does not fit the definition of "science".Wikidudeman ^(talk) 02:54, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

POV tone

This article has far too many "Pro psychic" websites and not as many "Anti-psychic" websites. It's TONE is also very POV suggesting bias towards the belief in psychics.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 03:14, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm getting some of that as well (as per my previous comments). This article could use some work. I might swing by later to work on it. And of course any help would be appreciated. =) – Lantoka (talk) 03:17, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, you can always add all the skeptic websites you wish, as long as they aren't sources for facts. This article is about a phenomenon which falls under the purview of the scientific field of parapsychology, and thus according to Wikipedia policy primarily presents the scientific consensus of that field, while noting other POVs. As with the article on evolution, it does not give as much space or credibility to POVs outside the field or outside the scientific consensus. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 03:25, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Firstly...I can't present websites that are "sources for facts"? Huh??? Secondly, "Parapsychology" is not a field of science. It's a field of study but it simply doesn't fit the definition of science. Period. Thirdly, Evolution is science. It's a field of science. "Parapsychology" isn't.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 03:28, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I will assume good faith re your response. I suggest that you study parapsychology before editing this article (or you may come to it with false assumptions). I also suggest that you respond, if you wish, to what I actually said, not what you think I said. I sorry this makes you angry, but those are the facts, and that is the Wikipedia policy. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 03:35, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Assume good faith in what? In me holding a position? I'm sorry Martin but the ARTICLES are for NPOV not the talk pages. Talk pages are for discussing the articles and there is no limitation of POV on talk pages. Secondly, I have studied parapsychology very closely. I have also studied science. Parapsychology is nothing but a form of pseudo science if anything. I did respond to what you said. I refuted what you said. You made a comparison between "Parapsychology" and "Evolution" but the two are far from similar. One is a science, the other is not. See the Scientific method for an explanation of what science is and how it works. The closest thing parapsychology has to science are vague studies showing a 'statistical correlation' between so called 'psychics' and controlled groups. Interpreting this as evidence for psychic abilities isn't how science works. Numerous other studies have refuted these. Numerous other studies have shown that "psychic abilities" simply don't exist. To call "Parapsychology" a science would be like calling "dousing" a science or astrology. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 03:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

No, you didn't respond to what I wrote. I wrote that you shouldn't use skeptical sites to source facts. You acted as if I wrote that you couldn't use sites to source facts. It is fine to state that you don't think parapsychology is a science, though I doubt how closely you have studied it if you say that, because science is method not results. But I don't know why you would bother to say that because, if I am correct, we were discussing what could be done with the article. And of course, parapsychology fits the conditions for a field of science, as concerns Wikipedia, as of course you know.

I would suggest that since people are constantly taking issue with your way of presenting yourself on Wikipedia, that you look into what they might mean. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 05:34, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Sigh. This article has gone from bad to worse. Now there is a "scientific consensus" that parapsychological phenomena are "well established"? There is not even a consensus that parapsychology has anything to do with science. We might be better off just deleting the whole thing and merging it into parapsychology, so that NPOV efforts can be focused in one place.--Eloquence* 09:59, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

As has been shown countless times, on talk pages and on articles, parapsychology is a scientific discipline. It is recognised by the American Association for the Advancement of Science[4] the largest scientific organisation in the world. It also has a range of eminent scientists who have worked in the field or who actively support the field including Nobel laureates. On the other hand the kind of pseudoskepticism expounded by entertainers such as James Randi, Paul Daniels and Pen & Teller is not recognised as a form of science and does indeed fit the definition of pseudoscience far better than parapsychology, the previous is mainly based upon personal opinion and secondary knowledge, while the later utilises the scientific method in controlled laboratory conditions. Please see this to avoid the common fallacies of pathological scepticism. - Solar 11:42, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

The scientific consensus within the field of parapsychology is that some types of parapsychological phenomena are well established scientifically. Read the source to the PA website. Again, Wikipedia articles follow the scientific consensus of whatever particular field they cover. The Parapsychological Association has been a member of the AAAS since 1969. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 21:16, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Replying to Martinphi, I should not use a "Skeptical site" as a source of facts? Well firstly that's totally false and no wikipedia policy comes even close to making that assertion. Moreover if I can't use "Skeptical sites" as a source of facts then you can't use PRO-Paranormal sites as a source of facts. That's only fair. Secondly, If parapsychology isn't a field of science then implying it is in the article won't work.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 21:31, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Replying to Solar, The "Parapsychological Association" as an "affiliate" of the AAAS. This does not mean the AAAS recognizes that association as a "scientific association", it just means the Parapsychological Association is an affiliate of the AAAS. Notice also that the "American Library Association" is also an affiliate. Does this mean that this is a "field of science" now too? Secondly, Appealing to the fact that it's a member of the AAAS does not imply it's a field of science. Even if the AAAS thought it was that doesn't make it so. It's a blatant fallacious appeal to authority. Thirdly. "Pseudo skepticism" is illogical skepticism in the face of evidence. I.E. skepticism of global warming or evolution. Not skepticism of unproven pseudo science like Parapsychology.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 21:40, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Replying to Martinphi, Since Parapsychology is not a field of "science" there can be no "scientific consensus within the field of parapsychology". There can be a "consensus within the field of parapsychology" but that "consensus" is anything but scientific. Wikipedia does promote scientific consensus. And the scientific consensus is that parapsychology is pseudo science.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 21:42, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Dear Wikidudeman, As you seem unwilling to accept that parapsychology is a field of science, I would like to know your criteria for something to be considered a field of science, then maybe we can have a discussion. As far as I can see parapsychology utilises the scientific method and conforms to established experimental controls, this has not always been the case, but today with figures such as Daryl Bem and Edwin May etc., that does seem to be the case. The endless attacks on this area of research seem to border on bigotry and ignore the fact that scientists such as Brian Josephson, Rupert Sheldrake and Robert G. Jahn among many others consider not just the area valid but also the findings. I need to see some basis to your position, I have shown that eminent scientists and by extension the institutions they work for such as Cambridge University and Cornell University support this area of research, I have also shown that while affiliation with the AAAS may not prove a 'scientific' approach it does support the fact the area is respectable to a major organisation, and it seems unlikely they would deal with a pseudoscientific organisation. I do not accept your accusation that this is an ‘appeal to authority’ as I am simply establishing the range of individuals, organisations and institutions that do not support the claim you are making. I have seen nothing to support your position and as mentioned below criticism does require proof. As far as your comment about pseudoskepticism being "...illogical skepticism in the face of evidence" I must also disagree, if you read the article on the subject you will find the following criteria:

• The tendency to deny, rather than doubt,
• Double standards in the application of criticism,
• The making of judgements without full inquiry,
• Tendency to discredit, rather than investigate,
• Use of ridicule or ad hominem attacks,
• Presenting insufficient evidence or proof,
• Pejorative labelling of proponents as 'promoters', 'pseudoscientists' or practitioners of 'pathological science.'
• Assuming criticism requires no burden of proof,
• Making unsubstantiated counter-claims,
• Counter-claims based on plausibility rather than empirical evidence,
• Suggesting that unconvincing evidence is grounds for dismissing it,
• Tendency to dismiss all evidence

I suggest presenting clear and specific reasons you dispute the studies of people like Daryl Bem rather than simply trying to discredit an entire field and avoid dealing with the actual facts. - Solar 22:50, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Replying to Solar...Solars post in bold my response after. Dear Wikidudeman, As you seem unwilling to accept that parapsychology is a field of science, I would like to know your criteria for something to be considered a field of science, then maybe we can have a discussion. A "field of science" would be an area of science that studies a specific field of nature and follows the scientific method when coming to conclusions. Parapsychologists don't do this. Their conclusions are based on methodological flaws which violate the scientific method. As far as I can see parapsychology utilises the scientific method and conforms to established experimental controls, this has not always been the case, but today with figures such as Daryl Bem and Charles Honorton etc., that does seem to be the case. These are examples of scientists who are 1 in 1,000 and who simply don't follow common sense or the scientific method when doing research. I need to see some basis to your position, I have shown that eminent scientists and by extension the institutions they work for such as Cambridge University and Cornell University support this area of research These universities that support such pseudo scientific research have received vast criticism and there hasn't been a single peer-reviewed scientific study actually showing "paranormal" things such as psychics to exist that didn't have methodological flaws. I have also shown that while affiliation with the AAAS may not prove a 'scientific' approach it does support the fact the area is respectable to a major organisation, and it seems unlikely they would deal with a pseudoscientific organisation. This is actually a fallacious appeal to authority. I do not accept your accusation that this is an ‘appeal to authority’ as I am simply establishing the range of individuals, organisations and institutions that do not support the claim you are making. Claiming that since the AAAS has that association as an affiliate they thus aren't "pseudo scientific" is absolutely an appeal to authority. It doesn't matter what they AAAS believes. Moreover the lists you give that are examples of "pseudoskepticism" really aren't. For instance "The tendency to deny, rather than doubt," This is simply semantics. In many cases "deny" and "doubt" are synonymous. If I "deny" the assertion that "The earth is flat" that does not make me a pseudo skeptic. And "Tendency to discredit, rather than investigate," This doesn't make sense either. Discrediting assertions is part of how science works. For instance if someone publishes a study making some absurd assertion then that scientists peers can 'discredit' his assertions and experiments. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 23:08, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Dear Wikidudeman, we must keep this relevant to the article, you say that parapsychology does not follow the scientific method, not parapsychology has used poor methods on such and such experiment with a citation, but simply parapsychology does not use correct methodology with nothing to back up such a claim. That kind of blanket dismissal just looks unreasonable and untenable in terms of the article, which must include all significant views fairly. If we were to say parapsychology is a pseudoscience when clearly the article on the subject does not take this position and even major sceptics like Randi don't make that assertion, this would totally bias the article away from NPOV, I'm sure you can see that? In your next points you claim universities like Cambridge have received "vast criticism" for supporting these areas of research. Cambridge is generally considered, along with Oxford, the best university in the UK, you are welcome to add any criticism related to Cambridge to the relevant section or article as long as you can cite sources. As far as your comment about methodological flaws, this is an opinion, some say studies are flawed some say they are not, the evidence is lacking on this point, so for NPOV we should include both sides. As we cannot do original research on wikipedia we have to draw upon the opinion of experts, organisations and institutions, this is the only option we have to establish significant support and is a normal process on WP. There are very few ways to truly show that something is scientific beyond the opinion of scientists within WP policy. Beyond that we can read the paper on a particular subject and if we find that the experiment was double blind, the conditions were fully controlled, etc., that's as far as we can go. As I have said before please supply something to support your blanket dismissal. Well, you may also disagree with the definition of pseudoskepticism but this is the most widely known definition as defined by Marcello Truzzi founding co-chairman of CSICOP, so my statement was accurate and your definition is not the established view. You seem to take a stance against a whole range of positions including those of major sceptics and do not give a single citation or reference beyond your personal opinion for why this information should be included in the article or even taken seriously. Unfortunately this debate has now become somewhat disruptive, it should not be continued on an article talk page. - Solar 12:40, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Criticism and Controversy in Parapsychology - An Overview

Why is this listed as a reference for the statement that certain psi phenomena is "well established scientifically"? I've read the paper, but can't see how it applies. Perhaps I've missed something. Could some quote the relevant part? Otherwise, it should be removed. Ersby 13:46, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

SOLAR, some skepitcs like james rani] think that parapsychlogy is science. Smith Jones 17:31, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Ersby, I don't know which article you read, However, one article says:

"If Schmeidler's questionnaire study (Schmeidler, 1971) can be considered as representative then it appears that the members of the Parapsychological Association at least concur that ESP is a proven phenomenon and that there is no reason to provide again and again new evidence"

And the statement is also sourced to the Parapsychological Association website. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 21:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I suggest the citation be changed to: "Parapsychologists' opinions about parapsychology", Schmeidler, G., 1971, J.o.P, 1971, 35, 208-218, cited in "Criticism and Controversy in Parapsychology - An Overview" By Bauer E., European Journal of Parapsychology, 1984, 5, 141-166, Retrieved February 09, 2007 Ersby 22:05, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Replying to Smith Jones. James Randi does NOT believe parapsychology is a field of science.

Replying to Martinphi, Since parapsychology is not a field of science. You can't argue that any consensus within parapsychology is a "scientific consensus".Wikidudeman ^(talk) 21:44, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

REPLYING TO WIKIDUDEMAN parapsychology is considered af ield of sicnece by many people inlcuding james randi read his article he does not agree with their findings but ebleives that many of the psycologyists behave in goodfaith. maybe you should read it more thoroughly afterwards. Smith Jones 21:50, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Replying to Smith Jones, How many people believe in parapsychology is irrelevant as is how many people believe it's a science. James Randi might assume some of these parapsychologists work in 'good faith' and really believe what they are doing but he in no way believes it's a field of science. Not for a second. Parapsychology fits the definition of 'pseudo science' not 'science'. Read about the scientific method here science. Parapsychology does not fit that definition.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 21:58, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, Smith Jones, I must agree with James Randi, parapsychology is not a pseudoscience. Lets quote Randi so Wikidudeman can get this straight, "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.". Clear? - Solar 23:05, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

You're taking him out of context. That quote comes from here [[5]] where Randi says " 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." He's saying that "parapsychology" Wikidudeman ^(talk) 23:14, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry Wikidudeman, that does not change the meaning, Randi says parapsychology is not a pseudoscience, that's what we are talking about. His opinion is also that it has not produced results, but that's another matter. And I would also dispute this and say that odds such as 29 quintillion to one in the Ganzfeld tests for example is a successful experiment, but we all have our POV, that's why Wikipedia shows more that one opinion, so readers can form theirs. - Solar 23:26, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Ridiculous

MartinPhi, why are you defending the following statement?

The scientific consensus in the field of parapsychology is that certain types of psychic phenomena such as psychokinesis, telepathy, and precognition are well established scientifically.

This is ridiculousness of the highest order and is even worse than the statement I originally objected to earlier on this talk page. There is simply no way that any self-respecting scientist would call magical abilities like psychokinesis and telepathy "well-established scientifically". In addition, your revert targets the edits of several uninvolved people who have visted the article and tried to make it more NPOV. Would you care to explain your revert? – Lantoka (talk) 21:25, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, that's your POV. But there is a scientific field called parapsychology, in which self-respecting scientists have come to a consensus (which I have sourced to the website of the Parapsychological Association which has been a member of the AAAS since 1969), that certain types of parapsychological phenomena such as those mentioned in the article, are scientificallyl well-established. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 21:32, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

If that is true, then I have lost all faith in the field of parapsychology. It is most certainly not a respectable scientific field then. Do they really claim this? Your first two sources for that statement are just essays debunking critics who criticize the scientific practices of the field, and your third reference is a glossary entry. I didn't see any of those sources actually claim that "psychokinesis, telepathy, and precognition are well-established in the field of parapsychology", although I could be missing something. I only skimmed them. – Lantoka (talk) 21:45, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Martinphi, See my above refutation of the assertion that parapsychology is a field of science because it belongs to the AAAS. Secondly, Since parapsychology does not fit the definition of science saying there is any sort of "scientific consensus" within parapsychology is factually incorrect.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 21:48, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

It isn't POV... it really is ridiculous. Even though there are many pseudo-scientists that claim that they have proof, there are no peer-reviewed studies that show any proof of "magical" mental abilities. None. Zero. If some scientist really had proof of "psychic abilities", he would win the Nobel Prize. Really. Seriously. He would. (As well as winning James Randi's million bucks). -- Big Brother 1984 21:53, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy

Parapsychology is a science as regards Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia policy states that Wikipedia articles follow the scientific consensus within a particular field (see this). Many or most psychic phenomena fall under the purview of parapsychology. This article, therefore, primarily presents the scientific consensus in the field of parapsychology.

"Honesty and the policies of neutrality and No original research demand that we present the prevailing "scientific consensus". (see link above) Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 21:29, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

However the scientific consensus is that the field of parapsychology is 95% bunk.Geni 21:34, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

95%? I think you're being slightly generous. Science is based on evidence, not myth. And until parapsychology finds some evidence to back up its claims, it will always remain in the land of myth. I supposed you could call parapsychology a "science", but only in the sense that the field of parapsychology repeatedly demonstrates that the paranormal doesn't exist. -- Big Brother 1984 22:01, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

You can include that statement in the skeptical section, if you can source it. But as regards the focus of this article, it has no relevance. I have not stated whether psi exists. I have stated the scientific consensus of the field, and that is what Wikipedia does. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 21:44, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Martin, That only applies for FIELDS OF SCIENCE. Parapsychology is NOT a field of science anymore than "astrology" is a field of science. Parapsychology is "pseudo science". Pure and simple. Since it does not fit the definition of Science it can't be called such. There is no "Scientific consensus in the field of parapsychology" because parapsychology is not a scientific field. Period.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 21:51, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

That is your POV, and of course you have a perfect right to it. However, the AAAS feels differently. For the purposes of Wikipedia, parapsychology is a field of science. Any other kind of standard would also call into question such fields as psychology and sociology. We aren't in that epistemological business. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 21:55, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Martin, That's not only my point of view. That's an established fact. Parapsychology is NOT a science. The AAAS does not claim it's a field of science. Since you didn't want to read my above post allow me to restate it..The "Para psychological Association" is an "affiliate" of the AAAS. This does not mean the AAAS recognizes that association as a "scientific association", it just means the Para psychological Association is an affiliate of the AAAS. Notice also that the "American Library Association" is also an affiliate. Does this mean that this is a "field of science" now too? Secondly, Appealing to the fact that it's a member of the AAAS does not imply it's a field of science. Even if the AAAS thought it was that doesn't make it so. It's a blatant fallacious appeal to authority and irrelevant to whether parapsychology fits the definition of science.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 22:04, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Validity of Sources II

Part I

MartinPhi, regarding the statement:

The scientific consensus in the field of parapsychology is that certain types of psychic phenomena such as psychokinesis, telepathy, and precognition are well established scientifically.

Do the sources you cited really claim this? Your first two sources for that statement are just essays debunking critics who criticize the scientific practices of the field, and your third reference is a glossary entry. I didn't see any of those sources actually claim that "psychokinesis, telepathy, and precognition are well-established in the field of parapsychology", although I could be missing something. I only skimmed them. – Lantoka (talk) 21:45, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Whether parapsychologists themselves believe parapsychology is a field of science or not is totally irrelevant to the question of whether or not it's a field of science. Of course they will think it's a science. As would astrologers and dowsers and people who think the world is flat. But does it really 'fit the definition of science'? No. Of course not. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 22:06, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

That's not what I'm asking, bro. I'm genuinely curious to see if "scientists" in the field of parapsychology really claim this. From what I can see, his sources don't back up this statement. What's more, a week ago this very sentence read completely differently (as you can see from my first comment on this talk page) yet is using the same sources. So I'm a bit confused. I'll bet MartinPhi can shed some light though. – Lantoka (talk) 22:07, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Latoka, here is what is says in the PA website source:

"To be precise, when we say that "X exists," we mean that the presently available, cumulative statistical database for experiments studying X, provides strong, scientifically credible evidence for repeatable, anomalous, X-like effects.

With this in mind, ESP exists, precognition exists, telepathy exists, and PK exists. ESP is statistically robust, meaning it can be reliably demonstrated through repeated trials, but it tends to be weak when simple geometric symbols are used as targets. Photographic or video targets often produce effects many times larger, and there is some evidence that ESP on natural locations (as opposed to photos of them), and in natural contexts, may be stronger yet.

Some PK effects have also been shown to exist. When individuals focus their intention on mechanical or electronic devices that fluctuate randomly, the fluctuations change in ways that conform to their mental intention. Under control conditions, when individuals direct their attention elsewhere, the fluctuations are in accordance with chance.

Note that we are using the terms ESP, telepathy and PK in the technical sense, not in the popular sense. See What do parapsychologists study?" Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 22:15, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the response, Martin. However, I don't think if that's the only thing that your essay says about the validity of these phenomena that we can use it as a source. You're extrapolating a whole lot out of one little sentence. Perferrably, we need a respected source in the field of parapsychology that has explicitly concluded that these phenomena are well-supported in the parapsychological community. Don't you agree? – Lantoka (talk) 22:19, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

MartinPhi...That comes from a pro-parapsychology website. If you say I can't reference skeptical websites then you alternatively can't reference parapsychology websites. Moreover, Since "parapsychology" doesn't fit the DEFINITION of science that's all irrelevant.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 22:20, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

The difference is that the skeptica websites are about skepticism, and PA website represents a scientific field. And no, Latoka, I think that the sources, especially take as a whole, are quite clear that the scientific consensus in the field is that some psi phenomena are well-established. The PA website says that this is the belief. And do you really think that parapsychologists believe they are studying illisions? Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 22:37, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually science is about skepticism. Skepticism of what can't be established to be true. Websites such as Randi.org are inherently scientific in their approach to the assertions of parapsychologists. Secondly, I've already explained how parapsychology is not a field of science. It does not fit the definition of science. Let us for a second assume that there have been some credible scientific studies done on psychics etc. This doesn't make 'parapsychology' a science anymore than scientific studies done on astrology makes astrology a science. In order for it to be a "science" it needs to have a vast amount of experimental evidence showing it to be true and no credible evidence showing it to be false. As Carl Sagan said..Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 22:44, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Martin, I don't see anywhere in those sources where it explicitly states that those phenomena are well-supported. Am I missing something? Can you quote? – Lantoka (talk) 22:51, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Status of the field

It is true that there are arguments about whether parapsychology is properly a science. But that is the case with many other disciplines, which we here on Wikipedia still present as sciences. Parapsychology gives all the outward signs of being a science, such as using scientific method and laboratory methodology. It has chairs in universities. It has departments in universities. It is a member of the AAAS. It has Nobel Laureates who believe in it. Just because you don't like it, doesn't mean it isn't a scientific field. And just because there is controversy about whether a dicipline is a scientific field doesn't mean it is not: see sociology, psychology, etc. Even James Randi thinks it is science, see link above where he says "I offer you this set of observations on the sorts of materials available to the public, and how that can tend to detract from the reputation of the science of psychology". Emphasis added.

Randi speaks of the science of psychology, not parapsychology.--Boloboffin 18:41, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

In response to several of the above (I keep getting edit conflicts), I suggest you actually read the sources, especiall the PA website one. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 22:12, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Martinphi, 1. How does parapsychology follow the "Scientific method"? 2. Parapsychology having "chairs in universities" or "departments in universities" is irrelevant to it's definition of science. Having a "chair or department" in a university doesn't make it science. 3. What link does James Randi claim "parapsychology" is a science?Wikidudeman ^(talk) 22:23, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Let me also emphasize that it doesn't matter a whit what we think of parapsychology. We are not parapsychologists, and we don't have the tools to evaluate the field. The field is one of science, and it requires specialized knowledge to evaluate it. We can only repeat what the parapsychologists say. Our own opinions are irrelevant here. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 22:18, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Really now Martinphi? So if I claimed that "Astrology" is a science then no one who isn't an astrologer could criticize it? C'mon! I can criticize "parapsychologies" assertion it's science all I want. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 22:25, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh yes, another sign of science is peer-reviewed journals. Parapsychology has them. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 22:19, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Let's see those "peer reviewed journals".Wikidudeman ^(talk) 22:25, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

To put it more succinctly, if one disputes the findings of a science, one could dispute that a science is a science. But we are not in a position to know whether the results are disputable; nor could we make that judgment if we were, because that would be Original research. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 22:21, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

We're in a position to determine whether it fits the definition of science. It doesn't.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 22:25, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

no we arent in that posistion wikidudeman because that wuld be a violation of wps' no original research rule and any thing that violates in the rules that is not valid. Smith Jones 22:27, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Smith Jones. However, I'm sure plenty of respectable figures in the scientific community have done this research for us. We should start reading up on sources. – Lantoka (talk) 22:29, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Me establishing that parapsychology is not a field of science would not violate original research because there is plenty of research out there supporting my assertions.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 22:31, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

You will certainly find claims that parapsychology is pseudoscience. However, you will also most certainly not find sources which will prove that parapsychology does not meet the definition of science if you read that page. And considering that it meets all the other standards mentioned above, I think that though you will find any number of sources saying that parapsychology, like psychology, is not science or is pseudoscience, you will not be able to take away its scientific status as reguards Wikipedia. We need others to weigh in on this discussion, as many others are interested in this page. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 22:42, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Let's look at parapsychology and see if it fits the definition of "science". Does it follow the "scientific method"? I say it doesn't. You say it does. Give me an example of an experimental study published in a notable peer reviewed scientific journal that established some paranormal thing like psychics. I'll examine that study and explain how it did not follow the Scientific method and had methodological flaws. Thus establishing studies that show "psychics" for example are real don't follow the scientific method negating the assertion such studies are even science.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 22:50, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

WIKIDUDMAN the burden of proof is on YOU! you have to find a parpsychologies study and proof that it is not folloqing the scientific method. also, not all sicnece have to follow the scientifc method because that is only one opinion and there are other ways to do science other than that ojust one way. Smith Jones 22:53, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I thought the Sokal Affair rather shot that one down. Still if you instist see Project Alpha.Geni 23:02, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually the burden of proof is on the one making the 'positive assertion'. That means the person claiming something to exist or to be true rather than the person denying it. If you want to prove parapsychology is a field of science then simply post a study supporting the existence of "psychics" for instance that has not methodological flaws and follows the scientific method.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 23:16, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad you said this Wikidudeman, because it can be easily arranged. The autoganzfeld studies meet his criteria (according to the skeptic Hyman), and the PEAR studies also do, I believe, etc. So then we are in agreement. Not that this is the necessary proof, because methodological flaws in the studies and the results thereof have nothing to do with whether there is a science of parapsychology. But even by this standard, I believe we could accomodate you. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 23:43, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

If a scientific study follows the scientific method then it won't have methodological flaws.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 23:56, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

A different take on the subject

I offer a different take on the subject. "Psychic" is an adjective as well as a noun. It doesn't just describe people with supposed psychic abilities, it describes the abilities as well. There's a lot of different angles this article can take, many of them neutral approaches to the subject. The science angle, proving psychic to be real or fake, doesn't have to be the main focus and doesn't have to make a definitive statement about psychic phenomena.

The article is still short and can take a different approach.

There is a lot of controversy over psychics (as a noun) and psychic abilities (as an adjective). Yet the controversy here is all about parapsychology. Parapsychology already has it's own article. The controversy here has already been addressed, or should be addressed, over there. A short paragraph should mention that psychic abilities are studied under parapsychology without getting into the debate over parapsychology. Mentioning that it is studied under parapsychology is factually accurate. Getting into the validity of parapsychology - in this article - is opinioning, and barely related opinioning. The validity of parapsychology doesn't have much to do with an article about psychic phenomena, especially if we come from a historical, sociological, theoretical, or phenomenological approach.

So what should this article address, if not parapsychology (beyond a paragraph or two)? Well, I feel that it can neutrally describe psychics and psychic abilities without getting into the debate of whether or not psychic abilities are real. The history of psychics, for example the Oracle at Delphi and other historical "psychic" figures, can be talked about. Psychic abilities in popular culture can be talked about (the TV show Heroes is on tonight). What psychic abilites would be like if they were real (ie. the phenomenology of psychic abilities) could be talked about. Psychics in literature and film can be talked about. Famous psychics alive and dead can even be talked about without making claims for or against them being really psychic.

In short, a well-written article could come out of this that makes no claims one way or the other of whether psychic phenomena is real. The reader can make up their own mind. Maybe it's rose-colored glasses I'm looking through, but I'm an advocate of approaching paranormal articles on Wikipedia in a way that leaves everything up to the reader to decide. I feel that Wikipedia articles aren't meant to solve the mystery, just describe it.

--Nealparr ^{(yell at me|for what i've done)} 23:01, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with this. This article should not make any assertions on whether parapsychology is a field of science or not.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 23:18, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

It can be stated that psychic phenomena is studied "in parapsychology" without saying "the scientific field of parapsychology". It can even be said that "psychic phenomena is studied in parapsychology where attempts are made to find scientific validation of psychic phenomena" because that doesn't say whether the attempts are successful or valid. It also doesn't say that they weren't successful or that parapsychology is invalid. That's the approach I'm talking about. That and that parapsychology should not be the major part of the article. Not that I have anything against parapsychology, of course. But if we were writing an article about something simple like apples, we'd probably spend more time talking about apples than botanists.

--Nealparr ^{(yell at me|for what i've done)} 23:32, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Edit conflict...

I agree with Nealparr. We should merely state in this article the scientific status of psychic abilities. Then all the rest of the article should give history, popular culture, etc. We needn't get into whether they are real or not. However, as science has weighed in on this, we must say what scientific consensus is. We need not weigh the evidence. We shouldn't get into the validity of parapsychology, or its results.

But the argument here is whether parapsychology is a scientific field. If it is, then we must give its consensus. There is much support for thinking that it is, and very little for thinking it is not, even if its results are ephemeral.

Nealparr did not say that the article should make no assertion about whether parapsychology is a field of science. Parapsychology is a field of science. We therefore must state its consensus, in an NPOV manner, and there will also be room for skeptical claims. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 23:38, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

It's absolutely NOT a field of science. Nelparr here has come up with a way to avoid saying it's a "science" and to effectively end this dispute on this page yet you don't seem to want to compromise. Let me warn you that if you want to try to keep the assertion that "parapsychology" is a field of science in this article then the only thing that will result is long drawn out arguments and the end result it being removed. I can say this with confidence because I'm 100% right. Now we could avoid making any implication that it's a "field of science" and end this dispute here or we could continue with it for days and me come out on top. It's up to you. If you want to continue arguing it even though it's irrelevant to this article then I must question your ulterior motives to having it in the article.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 00:00, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

For the record, I'm saying that there doesn't even need to be a "scientific status" statement in this article. Such a statement would be a non-neutral point of view. It's not neutral to say that science has ruled out psychic abilities because there's some controversy to that. Likewise it would be controversial to say that science has validated psychic abilities, because that's debated as well. My point is that an in-depth, well-written article can come out of this that doesn't make scientific claims at all, one way or the other. Covering the history of psychics, for example, doesn't involve science. Covering psychics in pop culture doesn't involve it either. If the science of psychic abilities does come into the article, special care should be used to make sure it is neutral. It probably will come in eventually, but it doesn't have to is what I'm saying.

--Nealparr ^{(yell at me|for what i've done)} 00:14, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not trying to say any of those things. I want to state the scientific consensus in the field which studies psychic abilities. That is NPOV. It is totally NPOV to say that within the field of parapsychology, the scientific consensus says what it says. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 00:18, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

No it is not. Scientific consensus requires scientists. The scientific consensus outside of the field is that the field is pseudoscience, and therefore the researchers are pseudoscientists. There's no reason to include this statement; it doesn't seem to aid the article in any manner. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 00:21, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

It's not supposed to be like this

Some here have made their changes to the article, without consensus and now are reverting anything I do on the pretext that consensus should be reached first. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 00:12, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

My last change cited a peer-reviewed journal, saying that parapsychology is a science, not a pseudoscience. What problems do you have with it? This is in accord with WP:RS. it definitely is a science as has been proven by the above. Smith Jones 00:33, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Guys, you're just going around in circles. This debate has been going on since the 70s. It's not going to be solved here. The simplest solution is to just attribute the statements to someone else and let the reader decide for themselves. Instead of saying that "parapsychology is not a science", or "parapsychology is a science", just say "In 1957, the Parapsychological Association was formed as the preeminent society for parapsychologists. In 1969, they became affiliated with the American Association for the Advancement of Science." Then leave it up to the readers to draw their own conclusions.

--Nealparr ^{(yell at me|for what i've done)} 00:39, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Proposal

Alright, debate over the validity of psychics is getting us nowhere. About the only things we can say for sure is that 1) people claiming to be psychics do exist, and 2) there's considerable debate over whether or not psychic powers exist.

With that in mind, I would like to suggest that we refocus the article on those two things... talking about psychics (both the history and psychics today) and talking about their purported abilities. We can discuss both of those things without passing any judgment on their validity or existance here, which, like Nealparr has argued, has been going on for decades and really doesn't have a place in an encyclopedia article. It's not our job to convince people either way...

So with that said, I propose that we completely rewrite the article from the ground up. I've started a rough draft in my Sandbox that has a reworded lede and a completely revised article structure. Let me know what you guys think of adopting this format. – Lantoka (talk) 01:09, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Do you want us to play in your sandbox? --Nealparr ^{(yell at me|for what i've done)} 01:15, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome to make changes if you'd like. I'm just proposing a new article lede and structure, basically, and seeing if people are more in favor of something like this. – Lantoka (talk) 01:20, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

okay i think that we should blank this article snd go with lantoka's format. Smith Jones 01:19, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I made some more changes, and with people's help, was able to fill in some of the sections. Ideally we'll want to turn those bulleted lists into text though. – Lantoka (talk) 01:43, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

As of now, the lead is still flirting with science. I propose a more neutral opening:

The term psychic comes from the Greek psychikos, meaning "of the soul, mental," which is in turn derived from the Greek word psyche (soul/mind). It was first used by French astronomer Camille Flammarion, who was also a noted spiritualist and psychical researcher. As an adjective, the term psychic describes the arguably paranormal aspect of certain mental phenomena. As a noun, psychic describes people who profess to be sensitive to psychic influence. The term is often used interchangeably with medium, although psychics attribute their ability to ESP or clairvoyance rather than contact with spirits.

--Nealparr ^{(yell at me|for what i've done)} 01:49, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Sounds great. Feel free to replace, and to reword any other parts of the opening/article as appropriate. – Lantoka (talk) 01:55, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

The current article is about a topic covered by a scientific field. I have peer-reviewed sources to prove it. Claims in the article must therefore be sourced to WP:RS sources, because when such sources exist, we are bound to use them. This is not an article covered by WP:FRINGE, because there are many, many peer-reviewed sources avaliable. The article already uses those sources. Wikipedia cannot simply re-write or write-out these facts because many skeptics here don't happen to like the facts. You can blank and re-do the article all you like, but in the absense of peer-reviewed sources (since those are avaliable), it will not stand up.

I suggest that I have made an argument. I have sourced the argument to peer-reviewed sources. The argument has been contradicted, but not rebutted convincingly. This argument will not go away by re-writing the article from another POV.

Wikidudeman, if you believe that you can prove parapsychology is not science, and you said you could prove it because you are 100% right, then do so, using WP:RS sources. Peer-reviewed sources. Put up, if you want this changed. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 02:12, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

The journal that was previously cited also covers astrology, among things. It's not representative of mainstream scientific opinion just because it's peer-reviewed. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 02:36, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't know the relevance of that. We aren't talking about whether it is mainstream. It is peer-reviewed, and it could write about little green men from Mars if it wanted to. Wikidudeman says he can prove parapsychology is not a science. Now's the time for him to do so. I've cited a peer-reviewed journal which says it is, in addition to other overwhelming evidence. And a peer-reviewed journal is not to be judged on the topics it covers. Mainstream peer-reviewed journals also cover parapsychological topics, sometimes, and not just to debunk. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 02:44, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

It is relevant. Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Undue_weight. Just because you can find a source that calls it science does not mean that you must call it science. As Nealparr said, why do we have to say that it's one or the other anyways? Does it help the article in any way? -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 02:51, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Martin...That "journal" you cited is NOT a mainstream journal. It's a pseudo scientific journal that produces exclusively pseudo scientific material such as Ufology,Psychics,aliens, etc. See it's wikipedia article here Journal of Scientific Exploration. It's clearly covered by WP:FRINGE.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 02:56, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I think we all agree with Nealparr that this article doesn't need to assert that parapsychologists are scientists.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 02:59, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

No, we didn't all agree. It may not need to say parapsychology is a science, but it is an interesting and notable piece of information. I am waiting to see the peer-reviewed mainstream sources which say parapsychology is not a science, and which refute the evidence. I am also waiting to hear why the scientific consensus of the "majority of scientists" (which has not been cited) is relevant to any question. Science is broken up into fields. If parapsychology is a science, then the opinion of the mainstream, while notable, is not decisive. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 03:03, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

There are no "peer-reviewed mainstream sources which say parapsychology is not a science". That's not how science works. People don't publish studies showing this or that isn't a science. If you knew anything about science you'd know that. I asked you to provide a peer-reviewed scientific study from a mainstream journal that established psychic phenomenon and then I would explain how it contains flaws. You haven't done that. I'm still waiting.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 03:27, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

You have said that parapsychology is pseudoscience, and that is a positive claim which you have made. Prove it. Parapsychology has already proven itself to be a science. It follows the scientific method, and publishes in both specialty and mainstream journals. Now you have to support your negative claim. Please, I am waiting. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 03:03, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

No. I said parapsychology is a pseudo science in response to your assertion it's a science. You made the initial assertion therefor the burden of proof is on you. Parapsychology follows the scientific method? Ok then provide a peer-reviewed scientific study from a mainstream journal that established psychic phenomenon and then I would explain how it doesn't follow the scientific method. That's me supporting my claim. Now you have to provide such a study.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 03:27, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Martinphi, you know I'm a fan of all the work you do on paranormal articles on Wikipedia, but in an attempt to find a compromise to the dispute, can you do me a favor and answer these three questions: 1) Does parapsychology absolutely need to be mentioned in this article, 2) Does parapsychology need to be completely defined in this article, and 3) Does parapsychology need to have words stating definitively that it is a scientific field in this article? These questions just pertain to the Psychic article. I know you're locked in the debate over parapsychology as a science, but I'm trying to get a feel on where to take the article itself.

--Nealparr ^{(yell at me|for what i've done)} 03:33, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

1) Well Nealparr, what do you think? If a person puts the word "psychic" into Wikipedia, don't you think they should know that it is studied scientifically? 2) No of course not, but given that there is a huge ammount of anti-psychic propaganda, it should at least be known that science takes these things seriously enough to study them. 3) No, but this is notable. Since there are so many peer-reviewed sources which pertain to all things psychic, aren't we bound by the rules to use them? Are we going to be using peer-reviewed articles, and never once mention that these are scientific studies?

How can we write an article on psychics, and not mention parapsychology? Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 04:17, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not saying that it should be excluded entirely. I do think it doesn't have to be the crux of the article as it was previously. Even if there was no field of scientific inquiry into the phenomena, there'd be much to talk about. What we're talking about extrasensory information here. It's the idea that human beings aren't limited to their physical body. That's the subject of philosophy, religion, spirituality, physics, anthropology, archaeology, psychology, biology, and a lot of other -ologies. It's pretty much the core of the human condition. Take a look at the related consciousness article. A great deal of the article takes the philosophical approach to the subject rather than an empirical science approach (neuroscience).

Personally (and this is just my own opinion) I'm not a big fan of the empirical science approach to things like the mind. The empirical approach reduces the mind to biochemical processes in the brain. That's fine as far as it goes. But we don't experience consciousness in terms of bits of information sparking electrical signals in the brain. That's just the biophysics of it and it's horribly reductionary. To me, it's far more important to study consciousness as we experience consciousness than reduce it to a bunch of digital bits. To say the electrical sparks is the true reality of the mind, what a load of crap : ) The reverse (what I like better personally) is the phenomenological approach which seeks to study phenomena as it presents itself. The mind doesn't present itself as a bunch of sparks.

Digital information in computer science, like the mind, is just a bunch of 1s and 0s when you get down to the empirical science of it (reductionism). And yet, when it's amplified instead of reduced, we find a whole web of interesting things to explore. You know, like Wikipedia. To say that Wikipedia is *just* a bunch of 1s and 0s discards all the great things Wikipedia is about. And yet, that's how empirical science goes.

Parapsychology is likewise a reductionary science. It seeks to prove empirically and in the framework of conventional physics something that, if true, destroys conventional physics. Again, that's fine as far as it goes. However, like the mind isn't *just* a bunch of biochemical processes in the brain, psychic phenomena isn't *just* some mechanism parapsychologists call psi. There's a lot of other (and I'm willing to say more important) aspects to the whole deal.

So yes, the article should include parapsychology, but it doesn't have to be pinned to it.

--Nealparr ^{(yell at me|for what i've done)} 05:43, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree, I must support the inclusion of parapsychology in the article, it is extremely important that the scientific study of psi be mentioned. It is not the place of this article to comment on the validity of parapsychology, those interested can be referred to the article, which includes information on this subject in a balanced way stating that some consider the field 'pseudoscientific'. Wikidudeman's totally point of view assertions have simply disrupted the process of improving the article. No article on Wikipedia can be the opinion of one person or perspective, that would make it an essay or worse simply tabloid.

I recommend mediation as this issue is extremely important and parapsychology must be represented fairly. I have never felt this necessary and have never had to go to mediation before, but I feel with this level of disruption it is necessary. - Solar 13:30, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Current Nealparr revision

[6]

This looks like the best we've had so far. Are there any objections to it? -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 15:40, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I'm done mucking around for now : ) Lots of room for improvement, expansion, etc. but I believe the part about parapsychology is neutrally worded and in-depth coverage (pro and con) can take place it its main article.

--Nealparr ^{(yell at me|for what i've done)} 16:25, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok, now I'm really done : )

--Nealparr ^{(yell at me|for what i've done)} 16:49, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Looks good man. Best revision yet. =) – Lantoka (talk) 18:28, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

i thjink that wer'e ready to adding the current revision to the editing by people not on this snadbox. Smith Jones 20:41, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

As long as it doesn't imply Parapsychology is a field of science and as long as it doesn't give undue weight towards psychics then I think it's alright.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 03:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Parapsychology is a science

Parapsychology (aka Psychical Research) is indeed a field of science. This is WP:V according to Encarta Encyclopedia, which states:

"Psychical Research, also parapsychology, scientific investigation of alleged phenomena and events that appear to be unaccounted for by conventional physical, biological, or psychological theories."

The University of Edinburgh defines it as a science and offers advanced degrees that include the study of parapsychology, [7], so does the University of Northampton, and the University of Hertfordshire, among others. Harvard and Stanford both have conducted parapsychology research - which they consider science - and although it's not widely known, Harvard and Stanford have fellowships endowed explicitly for psychical research. It's part of psychology in a lot of schools, and is a science under that umbrella as well. Dreadlocke ☥ 03:47, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Lest we forget, other major scientific parapsychology studies are carried out at:

• Princeston University, PEAR
• University of Cambridge, Mind-Matter Unification Project of the Theory of Condensed Matter Group at the Cavendish Laboratory.
• Duke University, Rhine Research Center.

There are plenty more. Definitely considered a science. Dreadlocke ☥ 05:34, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Post up those studies done by Harvard and Stanford.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 04:06, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

The studies done by PEAR were a total failure and were unable to be replicated by other scientists.[[8]]. As a result after 25 they are shutting down their labs in princeton [[9]]. As for the other links. Care to provide links to actual studies done by them that provide positive conclusions?Wikidudeman ^(talk) 06:01, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikidudeman, I think you're confusing the current methodologies of parapsychology and the interpretation of the results of those methodologies as the definition of parapsychology.

Parapsychology is not a methodology. Looking for psychic phenomena in dice rolling experiments is not the definition of parapsychology. That's just a methodology, and a methodology that might change tomorrow. Parapsychology itself is defined as the scientific investigation of alleged psychic phenomena. There is nothing in that statement that says anything about how that scientific investigation is done. It completely allows for a well designed experiment that follows the scientific method to the letter and proves that psychic phenomena doesn't exist. That too would be parapsychology. I'm very doubtful that James Randi would want to be labeled as such, but when he debunks or exposes an alleged psychic as a fraud, he is doing parapsychological work in the sense that he is "scientifically investigating alleged psychic phenomena".

The often disputed current methods of parapsychologists have nothing to do with it's definition as a field of science. Methodologies and interpretations might be pseudoscience, but the term parapsychology itself can't be because it's an empty term. There's nothing in the term itself that has an action that can be pseudoscientific or scientific. If an experiment is considered pseudoscientific, then by definition it's not parapsychology, because parapsychology requires it to be scientific. Dice rolling experiments, for example, if pseudoscientific, is not parapsychology itself. It is a flawed method mistakenly labeled as parapsychology. A person who fraudulently doctors the results of an experiment is not a parapsychologist, he or she is a person mistakenly labeled as a parapsychologist. When other scientists proves a so-called parapsychological experiment as being pseudoscientific, they are actually proving an experiment to not be parapsychological.

Let me take the skeptic's stance for a moment and still illustrate my point. I'll add my skeptical comments in green to the scientific method from its Wikipedia article:

Of course, throughout all the above I was assuming the skeptic position. What I am showing, however, is why every mainstream source defines parapsychology as a science. It is because whether you assume a proponent or skeptic position, parapsychology itself is "the scientific inquiry into psychic phenomena". The methods themselves might not be, but methods can be changed and perfected. The only valid debates are over the methodologies and whether parapsychology as a field of science is a worthwhile field of science.

Now, that took awhile to write up. Someone better read it all : )

--Nealparr ^{(yell at me|for what i've done)} 05:56, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Very nice, Neal! Well done! Dreadlocke ☥ 06:12, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Nealparr, Yes I read it all and you're missing a very important point. If parapsychology is defined as the "Scientific study of the paranormal" and "Scientific" implies following the scientific method then by that definition the vast majority of the studies done by so called parapsychologists are not scientific studies. The studies that are done that attempt to find a scientific explanation for the paranormal generally come up with non-paranormal explanations and actually debunk the assertions of most purported 'parapsychologists'. Now what is parapsychology? Is parapsychology the attempt to come to conclusions that agree that "supernatural" phenomenon exist or is it the attempt to study purported supernatural phenomenon and come to a conclusion whether it agrees with their precognitions or not? If it's the former then it isn't a science. If it's the latter then 99% of the studies done by so called parapsychologists aren't scientific studies and the 1% of studies done actually disagree with the concept of "supernatural phenomenon" to begin with. Leading us to the conclusion there's not even such a thing as "Parapsychology". Unless of course you want to admit that the people who refute instances of "supernatural phenomenon" are actually parapsychologists themselves. Making such people as James Randi or Ray Hyman parapsychologists. Which of course brings us to the conclusion that if 'parapsychology' does exist as a scientific study then there can't be a "scientific field of parapsychology" because there have been no positive results brought forth to justify it being such. It would be like calling Lamarckism a 'field of science' even though all of the studies done refute it's theories. Which of course means saying "The consensus in the scientific field of parapsychology" isn't justified either way.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 06:18, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Parapsychology itself isn't a set of beliefs or conclusions. It's a category in which to lump scientific study into psychic phenomena. There's a reason it doesn't have an -ism at the end of it like paranormalism or Lamarckism. It's just a category of study and not a belief. It's an -ology. Whatever individuals within or without parapsychology conclude, or believe, or do, is irrelevant in defining the actual term. A case could be made, yes, that parapsychologists aren't real parapsychologists, or that some skeptics are actually parapsychologists without knowing it. A case could also be made that only 1% of the work that is passed off as parapsychological is really parapsychological. But none of that has anything to do with the definition of the category itself. The category isn't technically tied to any set of beliefs, conclusions, or positive results.

I'm not advocating a consensus statement. I'm just pointing out the true definition of the term.

--Nealparr ^{(yell at me|for what i've done)} 06:54, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Let me state it a little simpler...Why can't the super small fraction of studies that are legitimately studying so called "psi" phenomenon be studies done in the field of psychology or neuropsychology or even cognitive science? What justifies "parapsychology's" existence? Who's to say that all of the scientific studies that have been done to investigate instances of "psi" phenomenon aren't actually psychological or neuropsychological studies? Inventing a whole new "field of science" based on a few studies that try to investigate so called "paranormal phenomenon" makes no sense. It would be like me inventing a field of science called "para-astronomy" to study whether our moon was actually made by little blue men from Neptune.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 07:24, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

What justifies "parapsychology's" existence?

I'm comfortable leaving that up to others to figure out. It probably has to do with scientists trying to reduce and reduce and reduce until its as small as it can be. Take psychology for example. Slice it up and you've got neuropsychology. Add a prominent theorist and you've got Freudian psychology. Add some wackos and you have abnormal psychology. Set psychology to the task of trying to figure out why we do what we do and you've got behavioral psychology. Take something that has to do with the mind, but is a little outside of it, and it's not really psychology but para-psychology. You get props in science for coining new phrases. Invent a word that you can justify a need for and they give you a place in history as in "John Smith coined the term para-widget in 2007 to describe objects that are almost widgets but not quite". --Nealparr ^{(yell at me|for what i've done)} 08:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

You're evading the issue here. Science isn't about adding un-needed words to it's lexicon. Especially words that have no relevant meaning. If "parapsychology" is justified as a field of science then it must have numerous accomplishments to show it's merit. If it doesn't then it isn't a field of science. The "study of psi phenomenon" is nothing more than a neuropsychological or psychological study. You can't just invent a whole new field of science based on a few flawed or unsuccessful studies.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 04:04, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not evading anything. What I am doing is taking time that I don't really have to address each changing point that you come up with as a requirement for it being a field of science. Whenever I address something, you come up with something else.

You first said that a field must be able to follow the scientific method to be a field of science. I showed you that parapsychology can. Then you said it was a set of beliefs and had to show positive results to support those beliefs. I explained that as a category of scientific inquiry it's not required to show results, positive or negative, and that as a category it's not a belief system (the -ism vs. -ology). Then you said that the studies that go on can just be thrown into another field of science and that parapsychology isn't necessary. I didn't agree or disagree on whether parapsychology is necessary, but pointed out that studying something that theoretically is outside the mind, the extra- in the sensory, can't by definition fall under neuropsychological or psychological.

I mean, you just said that "the 'study of psi phenomenon' is nothing more than a neuropsychological or psychological study" when earlier you were saying that studying psi at all is not science because it doesn't produce positive results. If it's not science, as you said, then how is it neuropsychological or psychological? Would it all the sudden start producing positive results under those other scientific fields?

I've addressed everything you've brought up and now you're suggesting that because it has its own name it's not a scientific field. You seriously want me to address that as well? I can point out that Egyptology is a legitimate scientific field eventhough it's also archaeology, but then you'll come up with something else to waste my time. I started off trying to find a compromise here, but you just won't give up.

Seriously, give it up. If you really feel strongly that what you're saying is absolutely right, then write the article yourself and let us critique it. I'm fine with that.

--Nealparr ^{(yell at me|for what i've done)} 06:10, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, I keep coming up with explanations for why "parapsychology" isn't a science simply because there are so many. Secondly, You never explained how parapsychology follows the scientific method. You evaded the point by asserting it can be studied scientifically which isn't what I denied. Thirdly, I never said "parapsychology" was a set of beliefs. I did say that in order for it to be a justifiable field of science it needs to show something it has discovered or has to have some accomplishments to be a field of science. You never justified the claim that a field of study doesn't need any results to be a science. Fourthly, Just because purported events of "psychic phenomenon" occur "outside of the mind" doesn't negate neuropsychologies capability to study them. Parapsychologists claim the origins of "ESP" etc are inside of the mind. Making them available for study by neurology or neuropsychology. Fifthly, When I say that the "study of purported psi phenomenon" can exist within the field of neuropsychology I'm making an assumption "for the sake of argument" that studies do exist out there that have followed the scientific method when studying "Psi". If you feel my objections are a "waste of your time" then feel free to stop responding to me. However I will continue to put up valid objections to anything I see that doesn't make sense or violates wikipedia policy.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 06:22, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

If I may quote and comment:

Firstly, I keep coming up with explanations for why "parapsychology" isn't a science simply because there are so many. What's left? Secondly, You never explained how parapsychology follows the scientific method. I said specifically that it can follow the scientific method and that you are confusing current methodologies with the field itself. The methodology is not the field. A bad experiment in neuropsychology doesn't toss neuropsychology out of science. You evaded the point by asserting it can be studied scientifically which isn't what I denied. No, I addressed it directly by asserting that it can be studied scientifically. Thirdly, I never said "parapsychology" was a set of beliefs. I did say that in order for it to be a justifiable field of science it needs to show something it has discovered or has to have some accomplishments to be a field of science. You never justified the claim that a field of study doesn't need any results to be a science. That's because I didn't make that claim. The claim I made is that a valid science can disprove an idea, ie. negative results are still a valid science. What I said is that it doesn't require positive results. Fourthly, Just because purported events of "psychic phenomenon" occur "outside of the mind" doesn't negate neuropsychologies capability to study them. Parapsychologists claim the origins of "ESP" etc are inside of the mind. Making them available for study by neurology or neuropsychology. Again, just as Egyptology is a subcat of Archaeology, Parapsychology being a subcat doesn't make it a non-science. Fifthly, When I say that the "study of purported psi phenomenon" can exist within the field of neuropsychology I'm making an assumption "for the sake of argument" that studies do exist out there that have followed the scientific method when studying "Psi". That's fine, but why can it exist in neuropsychology and be science but if it exists in parapsychology it's not? If you feel my objections are a "waste of your time" then feel free to stop responding to me. However I will continue to put up valid objections to anything I see that doesn't make sense or violates wikipedia policy.

There, all your objections are addressed directly. What did I say that you still have a problem with? If nothing, science is going back in the article.

--Nealparr ^{(yell at me|for what i've done)} 07:17, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

What's left? I'll wait until you refute what i've already brought up. I said specifically that it can follow the scientific method and that you are confusing current methodologies with the field itself. The methodology is not the field. A bad experiment in neuropsychology doesn't toss neuropsychology out of science. No. You're confusing it. I'm not disputing the fact that it CAN be studied following the scientific method. My dispute is whether or not you can call "parapsychology" a field of science or not because "parapsychologists" don't follow the scientific method when they come to positive conclusions. No, I addressed it directly by asserting that it can be studied scientifically. I never denied that. That's because I didn't make that claim. The claim I made is that a valid science can disprove an idea, ie. negative results are still a valid science. What I said is that it doesn't require positive results. On the contrary. You're confusing "Field of science" with specific studies. Yes. Science can refute studies. But inorder for anything to meet the merit of a "field of science" it needs to have positive results on it's side. Egyptology is a subcat of Archaeology, Parapsychology being a subcat doesn't make it a non-science. Egyptology has made literally thousands of discoveries and has produced a lot of positive results. "Parapsychology" hasn't. Egyptology meets the merit of a sub category of archeology. Parapsychology doesn't meet any merit. That's fine, but why can it exist in neuropsychology and be science but if it exists in parapsychology it's not? Because these are specific "studies". There can be many worthless and negative studies in a field of science as long as there are positive studies. However a field of science can't be a field of science based on nothing but failed studies. Sorry. There, all your objections are addressed directly. What did I say that you still have a problem with? If nothing, science is going back in the article. Addressed directly and then refuted by me. Don't think about claiming parapsychology is a "science" in this article when it isn't.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 02:50, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I read each of your replies. You keep coming back to the statement that parapsychology must prove that psychic phenomena exists in order to be a field of science. In fact, everything you said in your last statment has to do with that. Where do you get that idea from? Where does it say that any field of science has to pick a conclusion and then prove that conclusion in order to be a science? According to the scientific method, science is about coming up with a hypothesis and proving or disproving it. You have an idea, you design a test, and the test shows... something. Tests don't have to pass or fail to be called science, they just have to be conducted scientifically. Unless I read it wrong, you're saying that somewhere it says that they have to pass at least once. Where does it say that?

--Nealparr ^{(yell at me|for what i've done)} 04:40, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

If there are any "scientific studies" out there done on so called "psi" for instance and those studies failed to show "psi" exists then those are nothing but failed studies. Not a "field of science". Are there any "Nobel prizes" of science in parapsychology? No. Why? Because Parapsychology has nothing to show for itself. It's a "non field of science". If you want to assert that parapsychology is a "field of science" then we need to point out the fact that it has published absolutely no positive studies from credible non-fringe scientific journals who's experiments have been successfully reproduced by other peer reviewed credible non-fringe scientists. We need to make it clear in the article that there is an absolute lack of scientific evidence published that meets the criteria I posted above. If we don't then the article would be in violation of WP:FRINGE. So we can either exclude making the absurd assertion that it's a "field of science" or we can simply explain that it's a "failed field of science" that has published nothing positive that supports the assertions of so many "parapsychologists".Wikidudeman ^(talk) 07:09, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem with you saying that it is a failed science personally. My point was simply that it is a field of science. Failed science, successfuly science, it's all the same to me. If you're willing to call it a failed science then I'll move on to the other topic below.

--Nealparr ^{(yell at me|for what i've done)} 07:41, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

No, If you want to mention it as a "failed field of science" at all then you need to find adequate sources for such. I won't be bothered with finding the sources to make that assertion to create NPOV just because you seem intent on claiming it's a 'field of science'. So if you want to claim it's a 'field of science' then we'll have to explain it's a failure as such which of course would require sources that you'll need to find.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 07:51, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I am saying it is a field of science. I'm not saying the article needs to say that. The parapsychology article should say it, sure, but in this article it's not needed. That's why I never put that in any of my edits. Besides, I wouldn't say it is a failed field of science. The qualifier "failed" isn't neutral. I would simply say what all the other Encyclopedia's say: "Parapsychology is the scientific study of alleged psychic phenomena". They thought that was neutral way of saying it and I haven't seen any reason to disagree with them.

--Nealparr ^{(yell at me|for what i've done)} 08:42, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

None of the prominent encyclopedias I've read have ever claimed parapsychology is a "field of science" or even "scientific study". See the entry for encyclopedia britannica [[10]] which also BTW mentions it as a "pseudo science" [[11]]. Secondly, If you're not intent on putting it in this article then I don't see a point in discussing it here. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 08:55, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and other reliable Encyclopedias, like Encarta, say scientific. So I guess we have to talk about all that too. It should be moved over to the Parapsychology page though.

--Nealparr ^{(yell at me|for what i've done)} 09:30, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Wrong, Encarta does not claim it's a "field of science". It says it's the "scientific investigation of the paranormal"(Which I never disputed) but does not claim 'field of science"[[12]]. Neither does Bartleby for that matter. [[13]]. Webster says "field of study" not field of science. [[14]].Wikidudeman ^(talk) 09:41, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikidudeman ^(talk) 09:41, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Copy this over to the parapsychology page and we can discuss it there. --Nealparr ^{(yell at me|for what i've done)} 09:43, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

"Psychical research"?

Currently the 1st section titled "Psychical research" explains about the history of parapsychology and about the term "parapsychology" but it currently doesn't mention any conclusive studies that have shown the existence of "psychics" or even mentions such studies. For those of you arguing that 'parapsychology' is a field of science, post some peer-reviewed scientific studies that show positive evidence "psychics" exist, studies from credible non-fringe scientific journals who's experiments have been successfully reproduced by other peer reviewed credible non-fringe scientific journals.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 04:38, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't mention studies because an objection was made about the neutrality of those studies, partially by you. It was reworded for neutrality and now is historical. Introducing studies takes away from the neutrality you asked for before.

--Nealparr ^{(yell at me|for what i've done)} 06:20, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Wrong. I never made such an objection. The only objection I made was calling "parapsychology" a field of science or insinuating there is a "scientific consensus" in support of parapsychology. If this article contained scientific studies that meet the criteria I posted above then let me see them. The only links I saw in the previous version was about the so called "consensus" within parapsychology. Heck..There wasn't even a section called "Psychical research" prior to my objections.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 06:28, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

The section is worded neutrally. If there's something you'd like to add to it, go ahead.

--Nealparr ^{(yell at me|for what i've done)} 07:18, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

i have consensus[15] that the term 'pschical research' is hard to pronounce na long. i have voted tochange is to 'to psychic rtesaerch' and since i ahve consensus here now i will changing it. `Smith Jones 01:23, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Read my 1st post. Currently the 1st section titled "Psychical research" explains about the history of parapsychology and about the term "parapsychology" but it currently doesn't mention any conclusive studies that have shown the existence of "psychics" or even mentions such studies. For those of you arguing that 'parapsychology' is a field of science, post some peer-reviewed scientific studies that show positive evidence "psychics" exist, studies from credible non-fringe scientific journals who's experiments have been successfully reproduced by other peer reviewed credible non-fringe scientific journals.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 02:44, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Posting controversial evidence as positive or negative would be non-neutral point-of-viewing. The reason is because the results are frequently debated outside of Wikipedia and have been for some time. It's not the job of Wikipedia to make a ruling on them. We've already covered this.

--Nealparr ^{(yell at me|for what i've done)} 04:46, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, Wikipedia doesn't have any rules against posting "controversial evidence". If it did then there would be no article on Evolution or Stem cells. Secondly, Just because something "debated" outside of wikipedia doesn't mean it can't be posted. Thirdly, If a study was scientifically valid there wouldn't be much debate within the scientific arena over it. Scientists generally recognize pretty quickly when a study is legitimate or not. That's why you don't see studies showing 'evidence' of psychics in journals that meet the criteria I posted above. You only see them in pseudo scientific journals dedicated solely to claims of the 'paranormal'. Still...If you can post some peer-reviewed scientific studies that show positive evidence "psychics" exist, studies from credible non-fringe scientific journals who's experiments have been successfully reproduced by other peer reviewed credible non-fringe scientists then please do so. If you can't...Then we have no use for a section titled "psychical research".Wikidudeman ^(talk) 07:13, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not saying that posting controversial evidence is against the rules, I'm saying posting controversial evidence as "positive" or "negative" is not neutral. It is making a definitive claim when the claim is disputed. It's taking a stance one way or the other and that's not neutral. The reason I brought up its being debated outside Wikipedia is because it's not Wikipedia's job to solve the dispute. Wikipedia is meant to be neutral.

My earlier point (and the reason I got involved in this article) is that this article doesn't need to have a bunch of stuff on parapsychology. I saw that it was almost all about parapsychology and thought, why? There's already an article on parapsychology. This article is about supposed to be about "Psychic". Let's talk about that term, not the term parapsychology. They aren't the same thing.

This section doesn't need to be really indepth. I don't advocate the word scientific in this section, and I don't advocate dragging the debate over parapsychology over to this article. It's slightly on topic, but mostly off topic. There's a reason I wrote it to be historical. What I wrote is historical fact. There has been "psychical research" (in fact, that was the term used) into alleged psychic phenomena. This research is notable and often talked about. Was this research scientific? No, and I didn't say it was. Most of the research was the collection of anecdotes about claims of psychic abilities. That's not scientific in terms of experimental, but it is research. At some point, research moved from mere psychical research into parapsychology and experiments. Historical fact. Were these experiments well-conducted, successful, or any of that? I didn't write that in because that's a matter of opinion.

When I say that a bunch of experiments don't need to be listed here it's because this is only supposed to be a brief paragraph pointing out that research has historically been done. That's it. Really simple. Regurgitating the debate over parapsychology doesn't belong here.

The whole section is fact and neutrally worded. However, I only support the first three paragraphs honestly. As I said already, the rest of it belongs over in the parapsychology article.

My other debate over whether parapsychology is a science is about my obsessiveness with properly defining terms, and doesn't have much to do with this article. Parapsychology should be mentioned in this article but it doesn't have to be called a "scientific field of study". It can be called "field of study" and that works just as well. When we get into listing a bunch of experiments, we're dragging half the parapsychology article over here along with it.

--Nealparr ^{(yell at me|for what i've done)} 08:23, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, If the scientific studies meet the criteria I posted above then they meet the criteria for wikipedia policy and thus could be included in the article just as scientific studies are included in any wikipedia article. As long as they meet the criteria I posted above then there is no problem with including them in this article. Secondly, This article is about the term "Psychic" and thus should at least include scientific studies that have shown evidence it exists or not. Of course as long as the studies meet the criteria I posted above. Thirdly, If you do not believe Parapsychology should be called a "Scientific field of study" in this article then I don't see the reason we're even debating it. The current way the article is formated concerning the definition of parapsychology is fine with me.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 08:31, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

The reason I was pointing out the correct definition is because others were wanting it to say that it is scientific. That's the reason I was debating it. Here you're asking people to post scientific studies that you already said you don't think exist. If that's not trying to start an argument, I don't know what is. Are you wanting people to post what they think is a proper scientific study just so you can get into a debate about why it's not?

Nevermind, you don't have to answer that. You said the way it is worded now is fine. I agree. Moving on...

--Nealparr ^{(yell at me|for what i've done)} 08:50, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

You're right. If you don't think the article should claim it's a science then I see no point in spending more time debating it.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 08:56, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I really don't in this article, so hey, there's something we can agree on.

--Nealparr ^{(yell at me|for what i've done)} 08:59, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

IDEAS

Maybe we should split the fiorst section entitled "Psychical research" in half. one secton will be 'Overview' that talks about what psychical research is and the different kinds and the next one will be 'history' and it willtal k about how the theing started and what its doing now. the way it is right now is a jumbled mess and if ti stays like that when it might be speedly-deleted. Smith Jones 03:08, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Psi

Is there a reason a great deal of Wikipedia articles on psychic subjects are using the word "psi" now in the opening paragraph? I know you can just click the term to find out what psi means, but isn't it simpler to just say "psychic phenomena"? Don't get me wrong, I like the word psi itself, but it really only means something to the handful of parapsychologists out in the world who use the term. It fits in the parapsychology sections, but when looking for a word to use in the opening statements, it doesn't make sense to use "psi" over "psychic phenomena". A short while back, everyone was using "psionics" in these sections and that makes the same amount of sense. Readers have no idea what you heck you guys are talking about. I'm not saying we should dumb it down completely, but at least in the opening section it's best to use common terms.

Plus, there's some question of whether it is a correct term to use. Currently the article reads "As a noun, the word 'psychic' denotes an association with the professed abillity to produce psi." In some of these articles, editors are advocating that psi isn't necessarily a psychic phenomena, just that it's a measurable anomaly. I don't agree with that interpretation, but that's what they are saying. If that's true, then the line really reads as "As a noun, the word 'psychic' denotes an association with the professed abillity to produce a measurable anomaly." That's not exactly saying the same thing. Whether psychics are real or not (hence the word professed), psychics produce psychic phenomena, not just any ol' phenomena, if they produce anything at all.

The way it goes is this: Parapsychologists study psi (an industry term). Psychics produce psi as far as parapsychologists are concerned. To the rest of the world, none of this matters because psi is not a common or familiar term. Hence, bump it down to the parapsychology section and out of the opening statements.

OK. But it is simply not correct to say that a psychic is someone with the "professed" ability to use psi. The term "psychic" describes someone with the real ability to use psi, even if such ability does not exist. What the sentence says now is that anyone who says he is a psychic automatically is, and that isn't true. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 21:56, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

IT doesnt say anythting like that, MartinPhi.youre just reading too much into that sentence. Smith Jones 22:36, 3 March 2007 (UTC)