Talk:Parapsychology

Lead statement needs some clarity

From the lead:

“

In the US, interest in research peaked in the 1970s and university-based research is now slight, although private institutions still receive considerable funding.

”

With the reference:

“

(Odling-Smee 2007) "The status of paranormal research in the United States is now at an all-time low, after a relative surge of interest in the 1970s. Money continues to pour from philanthropic sources to private institutions, but any chance of credibility depends on ties with universities, and only a trickle of research now persists in university labs."

”

We should be clear that the "considerable funding" is done because there are "philanthropic sources" who fund them. Not governments, not universities, and not respectable foundations. Currently, the reader could be lead to believe that parapsychology is being funded in respectable ways when it, in fact, is not. In short, the poor credibility of parapsychology is not well addressed in this sentence even though the source is clearly indicating that this is the reason these facts are of interest.

ScienceApologist (talk) 21:26, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

One of the funny points of this criticism is that it highlights the, I would argue, unique position of Parapsychology 'parapsychology is not being funded in respectable ways'. Im happy to see that we can all agree with the statement 'parapsychology is underfunded'. Forced to produce what research it can in a very hostile environment. Despite 100 years of research, which has improved considerably over time, no funding is being made available - any other areas of science able to claim this? There is then the flip side, criticism of positive results = no one is replicating it, although no mention of a lack of funding and support for what can be time consuming and complex experiments is given. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caernunos (talk • contribs) 11:29, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

No one agreed that parapsychology is being underfunded, in my opinion parapsychology is being over-funded. Why continue to fund a dead end like parapsychology, with it's consistent methodologically flawed studies and hazy if not meaningless theoretical framework and subject matter?71.126.177.145 (talk) 09:19, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Psychotronics

Anybody around here speak Czech? The psychotronics subsection was added in good faith and appears to be well-sourced, but the English in most places is incomprehensible. Might be good for someone with dual fluency to have a look at the sources and try to decipher the passage. Cosmic Latte (talk) 08:48, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

My colleague is in China. When his come back - correktions mistakes. I am sorry to do not know obout it. Will be patient.--94.74.204.16 (talk) 18:26, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good to me! Thank you for your contributions. The parts of the subsection that I do (or think I do) understand sound interesting, and your colleague's help will be much appreciated. Thanks again, Cosmic Latte (talk) 09:35, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Is is better quality, do you understand?--94.74.204.16 (talk) 19:28, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Psychotronics was deleted a while ago, I then redirected it here since the only RELIABLE source I could find suggested that it was just a new word used by Russians and other Eastern Bloc countries to make parasychology sound like real science. I added this fact into the article when I made the redirect. The psychotronics section from this article was recently moved to psychotronics which brought my attention to it again.

It was still incomprehensible in my view and the sources did not look remotely reliable - symposium notes from advocates of psychotronic research forming their own associations? I therefore reverted to the redirect. If there is to be any progress in this section, it needs to be made here BEFORE being split off. This article has a higher editor complement, so there is more chance of useful progress. Splitting it off is just avoiding the problem of how to deal with a badly written, badly referenced section. GDallimore (Talk) 13:20, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the sources for the added section do not look appropriate. There is more of a problem here than just the readability of the language. MartinPoulter (talk) 13:41, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

physics ≠ (Not Equal to)mechanics, physics ≠ optics ... parapsychology ≠ spiritism, parapsychology ≠ psychotronics ... skepticism ≠ science, skepticism ≠ stupidity--194.50.64.137 (talk) 14:27, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

This source would appear to disagree with you. GDallimore (Talk) 23:32, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Parapsychology ≠ Psychotronics

M. Ryzl does not make psychotronics. Psychotronics is specially nonacademic activity.--194.50.64.137 (talk) 06:04, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Only "Psychotronics by Russians and other Eastern Bloc countries" (Psychotronics who was deleted) ≠ "Parapsychology", but "Psychotronics by USA and other Western Blog coutries" (there is not information obout) = like "Parapsychology". Your deleted is very bad.--188.175.139.22 (talk) 16:31, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

YOUR PSYCHOTRONICS CENSURE AND REDIRECT IS AWFUL. THE TERM PARAPSYCHOLOGY DON'T TELL NOTHING AT ALL ABOUT PSYCHOTRONICS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Notthatwisen00b (talk • contribs) 10:35, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Astrology?

Ok, so I was reading this for an essay in ToK, but it offers conflicting information about astrology in parapsychology. In the header it says astrology is a part of parapsychology, but further down it says that it is not studied. Some consistency would be nice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.110.95.115 (talk) 20:48, 23 January 2011 (UTC) In the header there are a lot of topics not investigated by parapsychology. This article is severely hampered by misunderstanding of the scientific endeavour. Ghosts are also not studied under a strict definition of parapsychology, neither are tarot cards or astrology for instance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caernunos (talk • contribs) 10:45, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Parapsychologist rebuttals

I removed a lot of speculation by parapsychologist that did not seem to be appropriate. In particular, parapsychologists are not historians or sociologists of science nor are they normally trained in fields outside of parapsychology, but for some reason we had a lot of quotes and citations to work by these people about those subjects. Parapsychologists are experts in parapsychology, not continental drift, the philosophy of science, etc.

[1]

128.59.169.46 (talk) 20:32, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Some rather twisted logic is being applied here. If comments by parapsychologists appear in WP:RS then they can be used here, irrespective of whether the author in question is seen to be "qualified" or an "expert". The main thing is to point out who exactly is making the comment, for the benefit of readers, which we do here. Best not to censor views from reliable sources. So I have reverted the edits. Johnfos (talk) 23:06, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Parapsychologists are experts in what they study, but using them to comment on the public response to modern physics, the scientific community's response to continental drift, or the general evaluation of their subject as a "pre-science" is poor form in a section that is trying to document reliable controversy. When scientists say that parapsychology is pseudoscience it is because, in part, the parapsychologists themselves are making such rhetorical blunders. Repeating them here as though they are facts is just plain argumentative. 128.59.169.46 (talk) 00:53, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

And one more thing

Why is the article citing Penrose's lunacy about consciousness as a rebuttal regarding the total lack of evidence for persistence of consciousness? First of all, Penrose's speculation is hardly "evidence", but, perhaps more importantly, he is not a parapsychologist nor does his current rabbit-hole excursion have anything to do with the parapsychology being described here. Isn't this just outrageous violation of WP:SYNTH? 128.59.169.46 (talk) 01:02, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Lame-ass reversion

[2]. At least have the decency to engage on the talk page. Thanks. 128.59.169.46 (talk) 19:42, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Reverted lame-ass tag again. You're just off a one week block, so continue edit warring, and I'm sure you will be given another vacation from Wikipedia. You have no support for your lame-ass tags. Now stop and go do something useful like playing video games. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:39, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Comment on the content, not the contributor. What do you think about the discussion above? 128.59.169.46 (talk) 01:44, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

niche research

Only published in niche journals... this is a weak criticism in the article, which I think on balance is best removed. All areas of science publish in niche journals, that is the nature of science. As a psychologist I have no interest in reading about the latest advances in mapping a genome, or in economic models of the financial downturn. Happily they are published in niche journals, as is the research I am interested in. It saves time looking, but can't seriously be used as a criticism of any area. As such the whole point of the couple of sentences, which I did edit but was reverted within 10 minutes, is moot. I don't believe this to be a neutrality problem, as suggested by the person who removed my edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caernunos (talk • contribs) 10:51, 12 July 2011 (UTC)