Talk:Parapsychology

Archives

Archive 1 Nov 6, 2004

Archive 2 Nov 29, 2006

Archive 3 Feb 24, 2007

Parapsychology is not a field of science.

Parapsychology is NOT a science. Please see discussion here Talk:Psychic for my argument. Please don't imply parapsychology is a "field of science" or that any specific studies are "scientific" without consensus. Simply posting a link from a parapsychology website that they believe it's a science doesn't make it so. See WP:FRINGE and WP:RS for further information.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 06:58, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Parapsychology is a field of science, as per psychic talk page. Please do not remove this edit again till you have achieved consensus on this issue. You must provide proof of your POV before it can stand; again, as per Psychic talk page. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 08:33, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

What are you talking about "per psychic talk page"? I established beyond a reasonable doubt that parapsychology is NOT a field of scientific study on that page. Let's look at parapsychology and see if it fits the definition of "science". Does it (Parapsychology) follow the "scientific method"? No. Give me an example of an experimental 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 and posted in the criteria above. (Any studies that don't meet this criteria fall underWP:FRINGE, studies posted in fringe journals such asJournal of Scientific Exploration) 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. If a scientific study follows the scientific method then it won't have methodological flaws. To be clear, 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'. The studies that have positive results always have methodological flaws and thus aren't scientific. 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. 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. Also, Britannica doesn't even claim parapsychology is a "field of science" or even "scientific study". See the entry for encyclopedia britannica [[1]] which also BTW mentions it as a "pseudo science" [[2]]. Hardly any credible encyclopedias do. Moreover, What justifies Parapsychologies existence as a field of science? Nothing. 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? Who cares? Just make up new fields of science for every little thing? No. 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. Does the fact that some purported parapsychological events occur outside of the mind (Telekinesis) justify a new term? No. 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", Telekinesis are inside of the mind. Making them available for study by neurology or neuropsychology. 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 because self purported "parapsychologists" don't follow the scientific method when they come to positive conclusions.(When they do follow the scientific method they come to negative conclusions showing no evidence for "psychics"). 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". No of course i'm a busy man and 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. So in conclusion. No, Parapsychology is absolutely not a field of science. Can purported paranormal events be studied scientifically in theory? Maybe they can. Maybe they have. In such events studies that have been done which followed the scientific method and had no methodological flaws have shown negative evidence supporting the existence of these things. In cases where positive evidence came up, they always tend to have methodological flaws. Meaning you simply can't have a "field of science" based on failed scientific studies.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 09:20, 24 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, [3], 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.[[4]]. As a result after 25 they are shutting down their labs in princeton [[5]]. 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 [[6]] which also BTW mentions it as a "pseudo science" [[7]]. 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"[[8]]. Neither does Bartleby for that matter. [[9]]. Webster says "field of study" not field of science. [[10]].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)

If you read what I said, it was that Encyclopedias say "Parapsychology is the scientific study of alleged psychic phenomena". Please read what I say before saying I'm wrong. I said specifically "scientific study" before you came in and said it doesn't say field it says study. Maybe if you read what I said you might actually agree with some of it.

--Nealparr ^{(yell at me|for what i've done)} 09:56, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Now that we're over here, let me respond to your "I established beyond a reasonable doubt that parapsychology is NOT a field of scientific study". The reasonable doubt that I reasonably pointed out above is that it meets every definition of a science except (as skeptics argue), it doesn't produce positive results. Then I asked where is it required to produce positive results and you said it might be a failed science. And I said that a failed science is a science nonetheless. Is that pretty much where we left off?

--Nealparr ^{(yell at me|for what i've done)} 10:06, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

We're far from over here. I know what you said. It doesn't support your argument. Just because something can be studied scientifically doesn't make it a "field of science". Sorry. Moreover, I have yet to see any evidence any parapsych claims have been successfully studied scientifically with any positive results. Nothing you said supports the assertion it's a "field of science".Wikidudeman ^(talk) 10:08, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Alright, we've both stated our arguments and made some progress and still disagree on some pretty important issues. Let's put that to the side for a moment. Now let's talk about what this article should actually say. I assume the dispute is over this line: "Parapsychology is the study of certain types of paranormal phenomena, or of phenomena which appear to be paranormal" and that some editors want it to say scientific field of study. Is that correct? If not, please let me know where the dispute is.

Again, just talking about what this article should say, looking over the history it suggests that you and Martinphi have strong ideas of how it should be worded. If you can please take a few moments to write what you feel it should say, maybe that's a good starting point.

--Nealparr ^{(yell at me|for what i've done)} 19:07, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I like the way it's currently worded. "Parapsychology is the study of certain types of paranormal phenomena, or of phenomena which appear to be paranormal."Wikidudeman ^(talk) 00:37, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

How about "Parapsychology is the scientific study of certain types of paranormal phenomena, or of phenomena which appear to be paranormal," as long as it doesn't say field of science? --Nealparr ^{(yell at me|for what i've done)} 02:15, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

No, That takes a bit thick brush and paints all of parapsychology as "scientific" when in reality 99% of what you'd call parapsychology studies are anything but.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 06:24, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Just looking for a compromise based on what you said above: "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'". I figured if you weren't disputing that then it might be an acceptible compromise.

--Nealparr ^{(yell at me|for what i've done)} 06:33, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Parapsychology is a science II

I haven't yet read the above, and I'm in a hurry. But it is my basic position that it doesn't matter what anybody here thinks of parapsychology. For the purposes of Wikipedia, we can't do OR. There are opposing positions such as those of Hyman and Alcock, (usually not published in peer-reviewed journals). These opinions are based on arguments over "what is science." But the basic fact is that parapsychology has all the trappings of a science, and we are not in a position to argue with that. It doesn't matter what we think. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 20:34, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

It also does not matter whether it has results or not. A field of science need not produce results. What distinguishes a field of science from an experiment are things like the number of experiments over how many years, the peer-reviewed journals dedicated to it, the placement of its researchers, and the recognition it has received institutionally. This is usually to some extent a matter of personal judgment. We cannot afford that luxury here, so we have to go with the best external sources we can get. Thus, what matters most here is that peer-reviewed journals are WP:V, and that the AAAS recognizes parapsychology, and that parapsychology has been institutionalized as a scientific discipline for over a century. Parapsychology is more marginal than many other sciences, but it does qualify. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 22:41, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

The starting line should read "Parapsychology is the scientific study of certain types of paranormal phenomena, or of phenomena which appear to be paranormal." Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 22:42, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Even some of the most extreme skeptics of parapsychology refer to it as a scientific field. Ray Hyman, for instance, has said "Parapsychology is the only field of scientific inquiry that does not have even one exemplar that can be assigned to students with the expectation that they will observe the original results!" Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 23:41, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I've already addressed all of this, Martin. In vast detail at that.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 00:38, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

There has been vast detail. However, it hasn't really addressed the subject so far as I know, which is what Wikipedia must accept. It has mostly addressed your views of parapsychology, and your views on what science is. While interesting, this is not really on the subject. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 01:23, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

The science page says "Other fields recently named as "science" traffic less in quantitative methods, such as creation science or parapsychology. In these cases, the terminology is difficult, since these appear to fit into neither historical nor modern modes of the use of the word science." The equation of parapsychology and creationism is highly disputable; but they don't dispute that these are to be described as fields of science. Wikidudeman, you seem to be out alone here. It is true that parapsychology is different from other fields, but even a lot of its most extreme critics say it is indeed a field of science. As encyclopedists, we can't argue with such a strong definition. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 01:40, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, he's not really alone. There's a lot of people who think parapsychology is a not a science. A lot, but by no means the entire science establishment or even a lot of it. It is a fringe group as well. How's that? The spectrum of scientists in regards to parapsychology goes like this:

• Parapsychologists who believe they've found something ->
• Parapsychologists who don't believe they've found anything ->
• Other scientists who are open to parapsychology ->
• Other scientists who don't even know about parapsychology (middle ground) ->
• Other scientists who know about parapsychology but don't have an opinion either way ->
• Skeptics that acknowledge parapsychology but disagree with the findings ->
• Skeptics that wholeheartedly are opposed to both the findings and the field

That's the spectrum more or less of the scientific establishment in regards to parapsychology.

The question is, what is the consensus? What does most of the scientific establishment think of parapsychology? The truth is, most of the scientific establishment is somewhere in the middle. They either don't know about parapsychology, don't care about parapsychology, are slightly skeptical, or slightly open to it. The middle ground doesn't say parapsychology isn't a science. Only the lower tier of the spectrum makes that definitive statement. The next to the last tier kind of thinks that way, but wouldn't come out and say it. The rest of the spectrum has no problem with it being called a science.

Scientists can be found in every tier of this spectrum. Notable scientitsts who are well respected and have a valued opinion can be found in the lower tier, ie. absolutely hates parapsychology. The problem is that these well respected scientists are still just in an outside tier. Right or wrong, it is still a fringe tier, especially as Wikipedia explains in WP:FRINGE that fringe is outside the mainstream. The mainstream is literally in the middle of this spectrum.

--Nealparr ^{(yell at me|for what i've done)} 02:11, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with everything you say. I think that most scientists would look at the methods of parapsychology and call parapsychologists scientists. They might go away shaking their heads about the waste of good minds, but they would acknowledge the method. Hyman does. Another distinguishing feature of a field is the development of lingo, and I think parapsychologists definitely have that (not to mention all the other structures of course). The science article says "Within these categories are specialized scientific fields that can include elements of other scientific disciplines but often possess their own terminology and body of expertise."

"Only the lower tier of the spectrum makes that definitive statement." Yes, this fringe tier is quite small- I can only think of Alcock. Some who you would think would not acknowledge it as a field actually do, like Hyman and Randi.

So, what would you say we could conclude about whether parapsychology can be called 1) science, and 2) a field of science? Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 03:33, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

One can point to articles published by parapsychologists in mainstream journals. I'm not sure how many, but several. I'm very handicapped by having no access to a library. This one as an example. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 05:01, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I expected you to post that Utts study. That study is inherently flawed for a many reasons. Due to lack of time and passion to refute it word for word I will explain a few problems with it. Firstly, Her results haven't been successfully replicated(Dr. Ray Hyman tried and failed). Secondly, Her paper is nothing more than a "review" of the past statistical experiments done in remote viewing and a statistical interpretation of their results. She takes them at face value when in many cases their own methodology is inherently flawed. In many cases these govt studies relied on only 1 persons interpretation of the accuracy of the 'remote viewer' to come to a conclusion when in science there should of been dozens. Of course I would explain in further detail the flaws of that study, I don't have that much time on my hands. I will however point to the criticisms from other scientists of the study (posted on Utts' own site). Criticism of M. J. Bayarri and James Berger [[11]], Persi Diaconis [[12]], Ray Hyman [[13]], Robert L. Morris, [[14]], And here is Jessica Utts acknowledging the inherent flaws in the studies she examined and her interpretations of them [[15]]. Here is an explanation of the flawed ganzfeld experiments [[16]]. and from Stenger [[17]]. On a last note...If Utt's study was actually successful(it wasn't) then why is it that no one has won James Randi's 1 million dollar challenge? If these statistical studies are more than just statistical slight of hand then why is it we don't see any real world examples that can be verified? Using abstract and inherently flawed statistical examinations of ganzfeld experiments really doesn't work out in the long run due to the fact if I took the time to address each of the issues raised in them(as the people I linked to have) which would no doubt take hours, You wouldn't even understand my refutation.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 07:00, 25 February 2007 (UTC)