Talk:Parapsychology

William James was not a pseudoscientist

Off topic discussion on William James and his family, has no relevance to the article

The first sentence of this Wikipedia entry summarizes what has happened here via the Skeptics Societies' assault (and influence on Wikipedia editorial control) regarding the credible work that has been performed in parapsychology by real scientists. To even suggest (by implication since the first sentence labels parapsychology a "pseudoscience") that William James was a practicing "pseudoscientist", or J.B. Rhine was a "pseudoscientist" - the terminology of which is well known to be used and promoted by the militant group of fundamentalists in the Skeptic's Society - is remarkably prejudicial and POV. William James was a scientist - not a pseudoscientist as was J.B. Rhine. 159.118.158.122 (talk) 15:06, 5 March 2014 (UTC) Our sources report that parapsychology is a pseudoscience. We'd need sources indicating otherwise to change the article.   — Jess· Δ♥ 15:29, 5 March 2014 (UTC) I suggest you check your sources. If you happen to walk around Harvard University - you will find a psychology building named after professor William James. There have even been some wild rumours that William James' brother was supposedly a writer. 159.118.158.122 (talk) 15:39, 5 March 2014 (UTC) No it's you who needs to check the sources. You are saying things with are deliberate lies which are not even on the article. Nobody is calling William James or Rhine a "pseudoscientist" (those words appear nowhere on Wikipedia). That's purely an invention of yourself to stir up trouble here. What the articles states is the field of parapsychology is a pseudoscience (there are countless reliable references for this) not individual researchers themselves. Goblin Face (talk) 16:03, 5 March 2014 (UTC) and PD James isn't a particularly good writer, in my opinion ;) -Roxy the dog (resonate) 16:43, 5 March 2014 (UTC) PD James? You think PD James was his brother?? Really? 159.118.158.122 (talk) 16:49, 5 March 2014 (UTC) PD James is a woman. What do you think I think? -Roxy the dog (resonate) 16:56, 5 March 2014 (UTC) Sigh... William James had a brother whose name was Henry James. Why do I even bother? 159.118.158.122 (talk) 17:02, 5 March 2014 (UTC) Was he a parawossname? -Roxy the dog (resonate) 17:08, 5 March 2014 (UTC) I have read two biographies of William James, both his brother (the novelist Henry James) and his sister Alice James were not fond of psychical research. It's nice to see you are interested in the James family as they were all fascinating individuals but I am utterly lost what Henry James etc has anything to do with this article. It seems you are using this talk pages as a forum. Your conspiracy theories about skeptic groups on the article is also wrong. Nothing positive is going to come out of ranting on here. Goblin Face (talk) 17:53, 5 March 2014 (UTC) I have read "William James on Psychical Research" by Gardner Murphy (a Harvard professor and scientist) and Robert Ballou. I have also read much of the work of William James. When he was performing research in psi phenomena - he and others like him didn't label it as "pseudoscience". That is nomenclature that has come primarily from the Skeptic's Society, and is derogatory in nature and as I said in my original statement - implies that William James (and other scientists like him) were simply practicing pseudoscience - and therefore obviously could be labeled as pseudoscientists (as the Skeptics Society has often done). 159.118.158.122 (talk) 19:57, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Pseudoscience?

WP:DEADHORSE

I'd hate to beat a dead horse, but again, I'm damned sure parapsychology isn't a pseudoscience. The sources cited to back up this idea are skeptic sources (and I don't mean "scientific skeptics", I mean "professional debunker" skeptics) that often refer to themselves, and thus only represent one-half of the debate. When people like Scott McGreal go back to say how parapsychology is a pseudoscience, they often refer not only to these same skeptics (who have been refuted again and again -- any look at the parapsychological literature will show this) but also to the worst events in parapsychology as evidence for the entire thing's being a complete sham. James Randi, in particular, has often been caught citing rumors instead of actual facts (see, for example, https://web.archive.org/web/20120412105918/http://michaelprescott.freeservers.com/FlimFlam.htm), and others like Zusne and Jones have been replied to several times. This isn't a conspiracy; this is a fact. And even among these sources, there are some signs that suggest parapsychology is scientific in its approaches (see Akers 1987: "Parapsychology is a Science, but Its Findings Are Inconclusive"). Citing one-half of this debate as if the final word lies with these skeptics seems like academic dishonesty. If you don't cite the replies to the skeptics, you wind up with a circular argument like this: "The skeptics who say this is pseudoscience are right, and we know they're right because the replies to them are terrible, and we know the replies are terrible because the skeptics are right." PhiChiPsiOmega (talk) 16:02, 8 March 2014 (UTC) Take, for example, the treatment of Puthoff and Targ. Nowhere in the article is it mentioned that they responded to critics, and a search on Google Scholar reveals that their very response is never cited by skeptics like James Alcock. PhiChiPsiOmega (talk) 16:02, 8 March 2014 (UTC) I am in agreement with you PhiChi. There is no longer rational open-minded scientific discussion anymore with these new fundamentalist - "pseudoskeptics" - a coin termed by former founder and CSICOP member Marcello Truzzi. Even though some highly credible scientific men (and women) in the last century have been involved in psi or para-psychological research, and some of the most famous (such as Freud)have even written papers on their conclusion of some forms of psi phenomena - none of this is ever considered in this new kind of militant fundamentalism. It is truly unfortunate that Wikipedia has lost its credibility for a non-POV stance regarding this area of credible scientific work. I know for a fact the some of the Wiki editors (who will quickly excise any opposing statement or edits based on their own biased determinations) - are members of this same organization of pseudoskeptics. 159.118.158.122 (talk) 19:04, 8 March 2014 (UTC) yes you are kicking a dead horse and yes you are dead wrong about there being any question that it is in fact a pseudoscience. So lets stop abusing the poor dead horse and call this comment closed. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:57, 8 March 2014 (UTC) PhiChiPsiOmega this has already been discussed on the administrator noticeboard where you have already been warned by several users. If you keep doing this you may be topic banned from this subject or banned from Wikipedia. You are yet again citing nonsense and promoting conspiracy theories about "skeptics" and Wikipedia. Russell Targ believes Uri Geller has genuine psychic abilities, you believe that do you? Michael Prescott is a "crime writer" not a scientist, so citing his personal blog is not a reliable reference. Your existence on Wikipedia is to just cause non-existent controversies and stir trouble because your personal beliefs are not supported by science. You write "I'm damned sure parapsychology isn't a pseudoscience" nobody cares what you think because Wikipedia is not about your opinion you have complained with your personal opinions over and over and it never leads anywhere. You don't have a single reliable scientific reference to back up any of your claims and you keep choosing to deliberately ignore the scientific references on the article which indicate parapsychology is a pseudoscience (James Alcock, Mario Bunge, Terence Hines, Massimo Pigliucci etc). Please stop wasting time doing these rants nothing productive comes out of it. Goblin Face (talk) 19:06, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Removing talk section at Will

Making this quick note here (that will likely be excised) by same editors, there has now been two commentators on this talk page (myself and PhiChi) who have had a selection of our comments completely excised (in addition to those that were selected to be hidden) - comments which were relevant to the topic and both more civil than the people who apparently can arbitrarily make this kind of censorship at will. This level of censorship is offensive to human decency (and is also non-scientific) and belies the non-POV stance of Wikipedia. 159.118.158.122 (talk) 20:42, 8 March 2014 (UTC)