Talk:Parapsychology

The Problem of Materialist Bias

The current page entry for this subject is inaccurate and not in accordance with Wikipedia's Neutral POV policy. Never before have I seen a topic that presented such a heavily one-sided and biased point of view. I understand that the bully materialists who censor this page are under the impression that there is no scientific evidence whatsoever to support even the mere possibility of the phenomena — which simply is not true. And when I tried to submit such evidence I was told that it was not credible and that it was "fringe." Since when are mainstream universities, institutions, and publications "fringe"?! It is ironic that the materialists, who think of themselves as the vanguard standard bearers of the Enlightenment have become just as insolent and bigoted as the religionists.

(1) The vitriolic designation "pseudoscience" needs to be taken out of the introductory sentence. If such cynics want to ad the word at the end of the paragraph that seems fair enough. This is not asking much, due not only to NPOV policy but the other standard mainstream dictionaries and encyclopedias are doing the same. This is because, despite what the materialists are trying to force others to believe, the issue has not been settled. (Furthermore, putting "pseudoscience" into the introductory sentence is just plain immature and not very classy.)

(2) Data that indicate statistical anomalies that cannot be attributed to known causes and PROVEN deficiencies (as opposed to assumed), must be left undeleted. I understand that no matter what source I submit the militant materialists will concoct a way to condemn it, which is why this double-standard method needs to stop. If a book that is used on another page is considered legitimate then it should be applicable to this topic as well.

And in return we will show the same fairness, because, I am sure that if I looked hard enough, I could find some imperfections in the materialist source material. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Novoneiro (talk • contribs) 01:40, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

You are not really writing the truth about your edits. You added a paranormal pseudoscience book called "Unseen World: The Science, Theories, and Phenomena behind Events Paranormal" by Rupert Matthews (an author who has also written books claiming bigfoot is real) to argue that J. B. Rhine's discredited ESP experiments were actually valid, this is not a reliable source. The majority of reliable sources show that Rhine's experiments contained strong biases, errors and sensory leakage problems.JuliaHunter (talk) 22:11, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

You forgot to mention that Matthew's book was put out by Reader's Digest, which is about as mainstream as it gets (that was my intention). And are you sure that Matthews claims that Bigfoot is real, or did he simply just write a book about Bigfoot? But even if I submitted studies from respected peer-reviewed journals, I am sure that the materialists would just concoct some new excuse to delete it. This is exactly why parapsychologists themselves have given up on wikipedia and let it fall prey to the cynics and the bullies. I have not seen anything that demands that JB Rhine's experiments have been completely discredited beyond all doubt. It's ironic that you see bias in Rhine's work and yet do not seem to see bias from the other side. The problem with bias is so pervasive that any scientist who has sought to conduct honest experimentation have had to publish in specialty journals - in which there is plenty of the rigorous attention to detail that you seek. I could easily cite such studies but I suppose that would get deleted to. The main point is that this is not settled science. The haughty declaration in the opening sentence that "Parapsychology is a pseudoscience," is misleading and needs to be amended. Let' start with that. Novoneiro (talk) 01:46, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Rupert Matthews is a British politician and paranormal believer. And yes he's also written books endorsing not just Bigfoot but ghosts as well. He is about as fringe as it gets. Professional psychologists such as James Alcock and C. E. M. Hansel have pointed out the flaws in Rhine's experiments. They are more reliable so that is why such references have been cited on the article. It has nothing to with being a 'materialist'. As for the parapsychology is a pseudoscience statement, this is well sourced to scientific books and publications. There is no repeatable evidence from parapsychology, not a shred of evidence in over 150 years. Not a single experiment that can provide conclusive repeatable results outside of parapsychology labs. It has not made any testable predictions or yielded any reliable theory.

The subject matter dealing with 'immaterial' psychic forces or 'psi' that blatantly do not exist is hardly encouraging, the field of parapsychology is not scientific or supported by any empirical evidence to date. That is what the sources say, it has nothing to do with materialistic bias. If the evidence was in, the scientific journals would be endorsing it but it doesn't exist. I am sure we would all like a magical cancer cure by now from 'psychic' forces or logging into Wikipedia just with our minds but it don't happen. There is no conspiracy to suppress this on Wikipedia like you claim. There is not a shred of scientific evidence for bigfoot, parapsychology, creationism, astrology or other magical claims. The statement that parapsychology is a pseudoscience is supported by many reliable sources on the article. I do not see it being removed any time soon. JuliaHunter (talk) 02:14, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

The statement 'there is not a shred of evidence' is often made, but is not correct. See for example ref. 2, which I believe is a university textbook on the subject. If the existence of conclusive proof were a criterion for some activity to be scientific, that would exclude investigations into gravitational waves, and indeed any field of research where the true situation is unclear. What matters is how the research is conducted, and by this criterion there is much scientific work on the subject, as the reference cited shows. --Brian Josephson (talk) 18:12, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

The university textbook you talk about is a book that is supportive of parapsychology co-edited by Caroline Watt. So what Novoneiro is saying is not entirely true. Not all of the sources on the article are entirely skeptical or written by 'materialists'. What is the actual problem here? It just comes down to the lead again. There seem to be an obsession from parapsychology proponents to try and remove pseudoscience from the lead. As stated this is well sourced to reliable sources, so there really is no problem. JuliaHunter (talk) 20:21, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Happy 15th. Birthday Wikipedia! If we want to be accurate, what is correct is to say that it has been claimed to be a pseudoscience, since clearly there are many sources, including the one I cited, that claim the reverse. It is surely bad practice to write the first paragraph of the lead in such a way as to ignore these opposing points of view. And since Caroline Watt is a lecturer on the staff of a very well accredited university WP can hardly dismiss her views. --Brian Josephson (talk) 20:48, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

@Brian Josephson: I'd like to understand something here: do you simply reject the label of pseudoscience outright, for all subjects; do you accept that some subjects are pseudoscience, but reject it in this case; or do you think that it is always subjective and should always be presented as having been claimed to be pseudoscience? Is your problem with the demarcation issue, the term, or what? Are there any fields of study you would happily classify as pseudoscientific? Guy (Help!) 14:38, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Glad to clarify this. I do not reject the label of pseudoscience outright for all subjects. I would not be prepared to characterise any specific field as pseudoscientific, as one would have to study the arguments made in detail to decide whether they came up to scientific standards or not. That being said, one may well be able to determine that particular individuals are speaking in unscientific ways, but one it would not be safe to conclude from the arguments of an individual in a field that the whole field is pseudoscience. And it is very easy to dismiss a field on the basis of flawed arguments; one meets this kind of thing all the time. --Brian Josephson (talk) 16:17, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

It's irrelevant what other editors consider to be pseudoscience. We go by reliable sources. Period. --Iantresman (talk) 14:56, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Indeed. I am trying to understand why Prof. Josephson rejects the reliable sources in characterising this as pseudoscience. Guy (Help!) 14:59, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

In which case, ask him why he "rejects the reliable sources in characterising this as pseudoscience", not his personal views on the use of "pseudoscience" as a label, as he is not attributable as an editor (unless he has a book on the subject), and his views are irrelevant. --Iantresman (talk) 15:46, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Glad to comment on this also. The source of an article is not that relevant: good sources may occasionally have bad articles and dubious sources may equally on occasion have very good arguments. Far too much empasis is placed in these parts on the supposed 'reliability' of a source. And, as I have said above, it is very easy to consider an argument demolished for reasons that in the end turn out to be flawed. I'd really suggest that you take into account my experience in science -- and be aware that criticisms may not stand up -- and not rush to judgement. --Brian Josephson (talk) 16:17, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

The reason why the label "pseudoscience" in this article is incorrect is simple: The principal international organization of scientists and scholars interested in parapsychology is the Parapsychological Association (PA), and the PA has been an elected affiliate of the American Association for the Advancement of Science since 1969. Parapsychology is thus recognized by the largest mainstream scientific organization in the world as being a legitimate science. It is irrelevant that some WP editors may not like this. The fact is that the AAAS only elects organizations as affiliates that clearly promote science, and not pseudoscience. 2601:643:C100:CCEC:2586:DC9D:DF21:A0D7 (talk) 22:50, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

I suggest the replacement of 'pseudoscience' by the neutral 'field of research'. To amplify my previous point, the only time it would be valid to use this kind of term unconditionally would be if there were a clear consensus to this effect, which there isn't -- it is only a small number of disadvocates that have said this. Even if were the case (as some incorrectly maintain) that there has been no proof after 125 or whatever years, that would not be equivalent to characterising the field as a pseudoscience. --Brian Josephson (talk) 12:12, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Furthermore, it appears that the dictionary published by the American Psychological Association makes no reference to 'pseudoscience' in its entry on the subject, referring to it only as the step-by-step analysis of supposed psychological phenomena consisting of the transfer of data or energy which can't be described with regard to currently recognized scientific data or laws. That must be regarded as pretty authoritative, IMHO. --Brian Josephson (talk) 21:57, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Mainstream sources can be found which do not use the term pseudoscience, but that doesn't mean those sources are making a claim that parapsychology is legitimate. The APA dictionary definition doesn't contradict the pseudoscience label, instead supporting it: "...can't be described with regard to currently recognized scientific data or laws." The first paragraph already contains five solid sources for this being a pseudoscience, and to equivocate on this would be non-neutral. The article also has a lengthy, well-sourced section on scientific reception and pseudoscience, and the lead should summarize the body of the article. Even if the PA is one of the hundreds of members of the AAAS, using that membership as an endorsement is selective WP:OR. Do we go by one small sub-organization, or by the published opinions of the large majority of members? Holding a non-mainstream belief and belonging to a mainstream organization doesn't make the belief mainstream by inheritance. Grayfell (talk) 00:06, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

The argument is faulty. Radioactivity, superconductivity and dark energy are all examples of accepted phenomena which were inconsistent with other data and accepted theories at the time of their discovery, but they were not branded pseudoscience; they came out of accepted scientific methodology. The same applies to cases such as faster-that-light neutrinos and gravitational waves from the big bang, which were discovered to be flawed but not considered pseudoscience.
'Published opinion of a large majority of members '? Surely not! Let's have the numbers, please: how many members does the APA have, and how many of these have published opinions to the effect that parapsychology is a pseudoscience?
I'd agree with you that parapsychology is not mainstream, but that's very different from it being pseudoscience. I agree with the points made by Novoneiro below, by the way. --Brian Josephson (talk) 09:35, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Moving right along... Not every significant discovery has been labeled pseudoscience, and some that once were are now taken for granted as mainstream. Pseudoscience has been, and still is, regarded as a pseudoscience. This is directly supported by many sources. The AAAS membership is already mentioned at Parapsychological Association where it belongs. Using that detail to indirectly support the claim that parapsychology isn't pseudoscience in the article would be original research. Regardless of whether or not the APA dictionary supports the pseudoscience label (and I think it does), it doesn't contradict it, and such a brief and minor source isn't really helpful here anyway. Grayfell (talk) 00:59, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

I assume you meant to write ' parapsychology has been ... regarded as a pseudoscience.' Moving on, look at the investigation A survey of elite scientists: Their attitudes toward ESP and parapsychology:

339 council members and selected section committee members of the American Association for the Advancement of Science completed a questionnaire regarding their attitudes toward ESP, parapsychology, and anomalous experience. Only 29% of the Ss considered ESP to be an established fact or likely possibility

Having 29% of high-level members of the AAAS consider ESP to be real hardly suggests pseudoscience.
In any case, the argument for it being a pseudoscience is OR, as it constitutes an extrapolation so, by the rules, we have to rule it out. --Brian Josephson (talk) 09:42, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

I would have responded sooner but I got blocked even though I was taking my point to the Talk page. If this was just a source material issue, then why was my contribution to the Princeton PEAR page deleted? which was sourced directly from the Princeton website itself : . This is not a case of healthy scientific skepticism, but rather agenda-driven cynicism with a snarky tone. The fact that the Parapsychology page is protected by someone or some group that is referring to themselves as the “materialists” proves the point. It is evident that the real reason for resistance is due to the fact that the topic is so called “fringe.” Indeed, this was one of the comments that was sent to me. There is nothing wrong with exploration. All historical scientific investigations have started out on the fringe. In regards to findings that were not repeated elsewhere, there are plenty of phenomena in the natural world that cannot always be forcefully concocted in a lab. It doesn't mean it doesn't exist. The subject of parapsychology has not been settled. This is partly because the interpretation of the data is influenced by one's own perspectives and bias's —including bias from the critics. There is a lot being posted pertaining to how imperfect the studies were that indicated anomalous results and yet I do not see such scrutiny when it comes to opponent studies (probably because it got deleted). Some of these complaints even seem to be based on conjecture. Due to the current state of bias, some mainstream journals refuse to even look at studies into parapsychology, which is why specialty publications have had to be created: The Journal of Parapsychology, Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research, European Journal of Parapsychology, International Journal of Parapsychology, Journal of the Society for the Psychical Research.and other journals, institutions, and credentialed researchers. are all reporting significant findings. It is difficult to believe that these are all charlatans. I suspect that the reason people seem to be under the impression that there is no repeatable evidence is probably because those who submitted such evidence had their info deleted before anyone saw it.

Dean Radin, PhD., speaks about this issue:

“Most scientists I've spoken to are very interested in psi, but science, like any social enterprise, has strictly enforced rules of acceptable beliefs, so it is not safe for one's scientific career to publicly pursue controversial topics of any type. The controversy is reflected in the way that Wikipedia covers psi and the biographical entries of scientists who study it. These pages have been hijacked by anonymous vandals who apparently have nothing better to do. (See WIKIPEDIOCRACY  for a website devoted to exposing the rising tide of nonsense contained in this popular but critically flawed encyclopedia.)”n [. . .] “After studying these phenomena through the lens of science for about 30 years, I've concluded that some psychic abilities are genuine, and as such, there are important aspects of the prevailing scientific worldview that are seriously incomplete. I've also learned that many people who claim to have unfailingly reliable psychic abilities are delusional or mentally ill, and that there will always be reprehensible con artists who claim to be psychic and charge huge sums for their services. These two classes of so-called psychics are the targets of celebrated prizes offered for demonstrations of psychic abilities. Those prizes are safe because the claimed abilities of the people who apply either do not exist or because the abilities are insufficiently robust to meet challenges that are actually impossible-to-win publicity stunts. There is of course a huge anecdotal literature about psychic abilities, but the evidence that convinced me is the accumulated laboratory performance by qualified scientists who do not claim to possess special abilities, collected under well-controlled conditions, and published in peer-reviewed scientific journals. There is ample room for scholarly debate about these topics, and I know a number of informed scientists whom I respect who have different opinions. But I've also learned that those who loudly assert with great confidence that there isn't any scientifically valid evidence for psychic abilities don't know what they're talking about.”

The fair thing to do is to at least put up a Disputed Neutrality tag up. Novoneiro (talk) 01:41, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

References

Tags aren't supposed to be a badge of shame, they are for improving the article. If every content dispute lead to a tag, then every article worth reading would have more tag than content. Dean Radin's findings and opinions are not in agreement with the academic consensus, and his self-written bio is a poor source for any article other than Dean Radin (and even then...) This isn't the place to talk about PEAR, but WP:PRIMARY sources are not acceptable for controversial claims, which was explained in the edit summaries. I'm not sure why you keep bringing up "materialists", are you confused about the name of the editor who protected the page? That editor's username is "Materialscientist". Materials science has almost nothing to do with parapsychology or materialism as a philosophy, it's about materials: metals, minerals, plastics, that kind of thing. Grayfell (talk) 03:08, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Speaking of the PEAR article, the issue of pseudoscience there was finally addressed as follows: "PEAR's activities have been criticized for lack of scientific rigor, poor methodology, and misuse of statistics, and have been characterized as pseudoscience", along with a series of reliable reference sources. Surely our job here is to more accurately reflect someone else's claim or characterization in a similar fashion, rather than opening with the bald assertion "...is a pseudoscience" as the first phrase. Seems like it would be better to lead off with a brief descriptive phrase of the field, and add the pseudo characterization after that. The idea is to differentiate between good-faith (though somewhat wacky IMO) research in psi and real pseudoscience as practiced by faith healing con artists, psychic spoon-benders, and the like. jxm (talk) 16:41, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

You say 'wacky research', but have you studied actual research articles before coming to that conclusion? But maybe you just mean unorthodox.
Anyway, I've now been able to get a copy of the full McClenon paper from a colleague. Most pertinent to the pseudoscience issue is Table 2 of that paper, detailing responses from 5 questionnaires to the question do you consider the investigation of ESP a legitimate scientific undertaking, where the precentages answering 'yes' in the five independent investigation are 89, 89, 85, 84, 69 (the last being that of McClenon's own investigation). This is absolutely inconsistent with the assertion that there is consensus that parapsychology is a pseudoscience. The fact that a few fanatical scientists have characterised it in such terms is irrelevant; they are a tiny minority. --Brian Josephson (talk) 17:18, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Okay, the majority of respondents to five questionaires consider ESP investigation a legitimate scientific undertaking. How on earth can that be inconsistent with "the assertion that there is consensus that parapsychology is a pseudoscience"? The respondents were addressing investigation of ESP, not its efficacy. Moriori (talk) 01:40, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Let me reword that in the interests of clarity: the majority of respondents to five questionaires consider ESP investigation a legitimate scientific undertaking is inconsistent with the assertion (which some people are trying to claim here) that parapsychology is a pseudoscience. Why? Because if something is legitimate science it cannot be characterised as pseudoscience, since pseudoscience is by definition not legitimate science. I trust I make myself clear. --Brian Josephson (talk) 21:41, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

No you do not. Your third sentence is not addressing your first sentence. The majority (X) of the respondents said it is ok to investigate ESP. The majority of X might actually think ESP is a crock, but being good scientists think scientific investigation should proceed. They support investigation, not claims for or against ESP. Re "if something is legitimate science it cannot be characterised as pseudoscience", try that in reverse, that pseudoscience cannot be legitimate science. It is fine to investigate whether ESP is a legitimate science. It is ok to treat it as a pseudoscience until proved otherwise. And it will be ok to treat it as science if it proves so.Moriori (talk) 01:40, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Basically, the question boils down to due weight. In some articles, the subject is considered to be a pseudoscience by a large minority, and it is appropriate to say "has been characterized as pseudoscience by this group". In other articles, the pseudoscience label is held by a majority, or very significant majority, and we should not relegate the characterization to a small group as though it were disputed. We do not, for example, say "the Earth has been characterized as round". The state of our sourcing is that nearly every reliable academic source on the topic views parapsychology as a pseudoscience. That isn't "a large minority". That is "the overwhelming majority", compelling us to abide by WP:PSI and WP:FRINGE. Reviewing both, you'll find the latter even uses parapsychology as an example of pseudoscience.   — Jess· Δ♥ 04:27, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

Are you a member of the materialscientists? Just wanted to know if you are qualified to make that assertion because it does not say “materials scientist” (as in materials and engineering), it says material scientist. So it is then just coincidence that the issue here is between materialism and non-material phenomena and you guys chose that name? Furthermore, I was not trying to infer that Tags are a badge of shame, but rather that visitors to the page who are seeking the truth should be alerted to the one-sided point of view that is dominating this page, and all other related topic pages, such as ESP and PEAR. This is a fair request. Furthermore, the PEAR controversy happened on the PEAR page. I brought it up because I was accused of not submitting credible sources. And yet when I did it still got deleted it. The explanation for the deletion (either on that PEAR edit, or one of the other deletions on the ESP page) was that I was legitimizing the subject!, which I think was a very telling admission of bias. That was my point. And no, Radin's credentials cannot be denied. Moreover, all scientific investigations have started out with a person or a small group of persons who were out of the mainstream. That is why the mainstream consensus point means absolutely nothing. It should also be remembered that there was a time when the theory of continental drift, germs, and meteorites were considered too fringe as well . Here are some more examples from credentialed scientists that can also not be dismissed: A study on retrocausation out of Cornell by Daryl Bem Ph.D. indicates significant results . A study confirming mind and matter interactions by the French physician-researcher, Jean Barry: A study confirming the reality of distance healing: Cypher-Springer, Shelley; Eicher, Dorothea J. A study by R.A. McConnell also indicates that “the phenomena are real, and they can be investigated.” Credentialed researchers such as Elizabeth Rauscher, Russell Tag, O. Costa de Beauregard and Nobel Prize winner Brian Josephson have all attested to the serious nature of the phenomena. See also: See also Russell Targ Ph.D. The Reality of ESP: A Physicists Proof of Psychic Abilities. (2012). And Robert Almeder, Ph.D., Truth and Skepticism and Death and Personal Survival: The Evidence for Life after Death. (1992). The findings indicate that the energy of consciousness is not confined to the brain and that mind and matter interactions have been confirmed . Even the renowned skeptic Carl Sagan admitted in his book, Demon-Haunted World (1996), that there were some aspects related to the paranormal that “might be true.” (p. 302). In terms of books, journals, qualified scientists and scholars, I could go on. Their books are all over Amazon. I understand that critics argue that because the findings cannot be precisely repeated that they must be false. Firstly, one cannot use entirely different people in a separate study and then expect the results to be the same. For example, a subject who who drinks a lot of beer and watches a lot of TV is not going to score the same as Buddhist monk. Therefore the critics have failed to take the subjective nature of the experience into account. This is a major oversight. Indeed, “Its effects are unconscious and evanescent, involving the experimenter as well as his presumed test material.” . Moreover, researchers argue that there have indeed been replications: . The reason why you guys don't know about this is because it keeps getting repressed! I am also wondering if you guys are subjecting the critical data to the same standard that you are subjecting the psi data to? I suspect not. The reason why this is not more commonly known is because it keeps getting disregarded and repressed. If you guys want to make the point that the topic is debatable that is fair. What is not fair is behaving as if the issue has already been settled. This is absurd. The censorship that has been occurring on these pages is a major dark stain on the reputation of Wikipedia and something needs to be done about it. Moreover this is not just an affront to wikipedia but an affront to science. Novoneiro (talk) 04:53, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Wow, that's a mess. Let's take things one at a time. Can you pick out just one source, ideally the highest quality, which suggests there is significant disagreement in the scientific community about parapsychology and its status as a pseudoscience? Please just give me something really brief, and we'll work through it. Thanks.   — Jess· Δ♥ 05:46, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

OK then. Here's the table, extracted from the article that I cited earlier (trust this isn't so much of a 'mess' that you can't follow it). --Brian Josephson (talk) 09:31, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Jess, you might find Wikipedia's ArbCom ruling on this topic both brief and useful for framing this article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Paranormal#Conflation_of_parapsychology_with_unscientific_concepts 75.118.11.184 (talk) 14:25, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Excerpts from an arbcom ruling a decade ago don't change the sourcing. In terms of policy, this article falls under the pseudoscience DS, and is used as an explicit example of pseudoscience in WP:FRINGE/PS. Sourcing was improved since 2008, and it has been appropriately categorized and described since then.

frustrating@Brian, those surveys are from 1938 to 1981, meaning they are between 35 and 80 years old. The question they ask, "is investigation of ESP a legitimate scientific undertaking" is a distinctly different question than "is parapsychology a legitimate science". The authors of the paper were presumably well aware of this distinction, since even in their own conclusion they do not quote the 69% figure. In addition to the significant age, and the entirely different question, the paper is published by the Journal of Parapsychology, which is not a reliable scientific source on this topic. We have loads of sources from many backgrounds indicating parapsychology is not in any way a scientific discipline, so finding parapsychologists from the 1980s who say it is is hardly surprising.   — Jess· Δ♥ 16:41, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Your way of arguing is deeply circular. You consider as reliable only sources that say that parapsychology is a pseudoscience and you reject any source that say the contrary. Obviously, you can reach only one conclusion with this way of reasonning. No wonder some people find that this page is not neutral. It simply cannot be with this way of approaching the topic. For example, I don't understand why you don't consider the Journal of Parapsychology as a reliable scientific source. As other have explained before on this Talk Page, it's published by the Parapsychological Association which is a member of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. It seems to me you reject that source as unreliable because of your position on the debate, not because of any real good reason from a wikipedia standpoint. Are you claiming that the AAAS is a pseudoscientific organisation?JMA1 (talk) 10:30, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

For the purposes of Wikipedia, parapsychology is not considered to be an independent and unbiased WP:RS source of commentary about itself. This applies to most subjects on Wikipedia and especially with fringe topics, so we follow WP:FRIND here. Also I should point out that American Alpine Club has a member listing with the AAAS. It does not serve as validation of a member's "scientific" status. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:28, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Indeed. Wikipedia is a reality-based encyclopaedia, by design. We don't shy from describing the universe as scientific inquiry finds it, rather than as some people might wish it to be. We will change our description of parapsychology just as soon as their is compelling evidence in the form of repeatable and verifiable empirical experiment to show that it actually exists. The trend over the last few decades has been the other way, with most recent research instead showing the quirks of the human mind whihc cause us to believe things that are not so. Guy (Help!) 14:34, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Sorry to disagree with you Guy, but I've been following parapsychology for some 40 years, and while it is the case that recent research shows 'the quirks of the human mind which cause us to believe things that are not so', parapsychologists have been busy combating this problem by for example automating experiments so that people can't interfere or introduce errors, improving experimental design so as to eliminate known sources of error. And they take account the advice of people much more expert in statistics than those who criticise the design, and tend not to take proper account of the facts! There is a lot to be said here, but I can't spare the time to go into details (yes, I know that's a pity). --Brian Josephson (talk) 18:09, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

LuckyLouie, can you point me to the ruling/policy which considers "parapsychology is not considered to be an independent and unbiased", I would like to read it.

JzG, I have never heard Wikipedia described as a "reality-based encyclopaedia", but a verifiable source-based one, which is why good editors can easily describe non-reality such as fairy tales or utter nonsense without any issues whatsoever. --Iantresman (talk) 15:08, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Sorry Ian, I can't point you to a "ruling/policy" that addresses the portion of my comment you have lifted completely out of context. And I find the question very odd, since it appears you have been around long enough to know our policies regarding sourcing for fringe topics and the reasoning behind them. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:50, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

I thought I was aware of most policies, but did not recall one which infers your statement. I've read through WP:INDEPENDENT a couple times, and can find nothing which singles out what you call "fringe topics", let alone parapsychology, so I assumed there was something else I wasn't aware of. I'll keep on looking. --Iantresman (talk) 17:53, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Lead Style

I suggest that we aspire to the Wikipedia manual of style and examine how we might better introduce this article using WP:LEAD. Back in 2008, this was a featured article and it's lead did a good job of defining the topic, establishing a context, explaining why the topic is notable, and summarizing the most important points, including any prominent controversies. In those days, it read like this:

Parapsychology is the study of paranormal events including extrasensory perception, psychokinesis, and survival of consciousness after death. Parapsychological research involves a variety of methods including laboratory research and fieldwork, which is conducted at privately funded laboratories and some universities around the world though there are fewer universities actively sponsoring parapsychological research today than in years past. Experiments conducted by parapsychologists have included the use of pseudorandom number generators to test for evidence of psychokinesis, sensory-deprivation Ganzfeld experiments to test for extrasensory perception, and research trials conducted under contract to the United States government to investigate the possibility of remote viewing. Though recognized as a legitimate scientific field by the American Association for the Advancement of Science, active parapsychologists have admitted difficulty in getting scientists to accept their research, and science educators and scientists have called the subject pseudoscience. Scientists such as Ray Hyman, Stanley Krippner, and James Alcock have criticized both the methods used and the results obtained in parapsychology. Skeptical researchers suggest that methodological flaws, rather than the anomalistic explanations offered by many parapsychologists, provide the best explanation for apparent experimental successes. To date, the scientific community has not accepted evidence of the existence of the paranormal.

I recommend tweaking it a bit and having it read as thus (changes bolded):

Parapsychology is the study of paranormal events including extrasensory perception, psychokinesis, and survival of consciousness after death. Parapsychological research involves a variety of methods including laboratory research and fieldwork, which is have been conducted at privately funded laboratories and some universities around the world though there are fewer universities actively sponsoring parapsychological research today than in years past (this sounds like original research). Experiments conducted by parapsychologists have included the use of pseudorandom number generators to test for evidence of psychokinesis, sensory-deprivation Ganzfeld experiments to test for extrasensory perception, and research trials conducted under contract to the United States government to investigate the possibility of remote viewing. Though recognized as a legitimate scientific field by the American Association for the Advancement of Science, active parapsychologists have admitted difficulty in getting other scientists to accept their research, and science educators and scientists counter-advocates have called the subject pseudoscience. Scientists Psychologistssuch as Ray Hyman Stanley Krippner, and James Alcock have criticized both the methods used and the results obtained in parapsychology. Skeptical researchers Critics suggest that methodological flaws, rather than the anomalistic explanations offered by many parapsychologists, provide the best explanation for apparent experimental successes. To date, the general scientific community has not accepted evidence of the existence of the paranormal.

Thoughts? 67.149.219.157 (talk) 20:44, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

OK at the start, nice and objective, but then it gets a bit unbalanced, focussing on the negative -- see my comments in previous section. I'm sure though that your text can be amended so that it gives appropriate cover of both sides. Those four succeeding sentences might well be reduced to one or two summarising the views of scientists, giving due attention to what surveys have indicated about scientists as a whole, rather than just the minority of vocal objectors. --Brian Josephson (talk) 20:58, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable. The sentence "Scientists such as Ray Hyman Stanley Krippner, and James Alcock have criticized both the methods used and the results obtained in parapsychology." is redundant and could easily be deleted, since the sentence following says the same thing more generally. 67.149.219.157 (talk) 21:12, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

The scientific consensus is that parapsychology is a pseudoscience. Wikipedia does not give equal weight to fringe views. Look at the lead of creationism or homeopathy. 84.43.115.148 (talk) 00:00, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

One wonders how we came to abandon the 2008 version in the first place! :-) The suggested tweaking looks good to me, with one suggested change. The phrase conducted under contract to the United States government seems a bit out-of-place in the exemplar list. Aside from being distracting, it's also inaccurate, as early RV work was independently funded in any case. jxm (talk) 01:43, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

I'd have no problem with someone adding more detail to the lead, as long as it reflects the relative weight of the material contained in the body of the article, such as mentioning the Ganzfield experiments, random number generators, PEAR, etc. However the changes you've suggested above -- such as replacing the word "researchers" with "critics", and "science educators and scientists" with "counter-advocates", or specifying that a "general" scientific community "doesn't accept evidence" of the paranormal (?) -- actually misrepresent what's in the body of the article. Per WP:LEAD, the lead's function is to summarize the article's most important contents, not subtly argue a more sympathetic view for its subject. - LuckyLouie (talk)

LL has this right. Expanding the lead would be fine, but we need to do it with respect to the weight of the sources. We should not sandwich "pseudoscience" between "X considers parapsychology to be...Y disagrees", because that doesn't reflect the best sources we have. The proposed lead takes pains to present parapsychology as scientific, which is problematic. Reviewing our current lead, I don't see anything glaringly wrong, but it does appear short. Summarizing our article more thoroughly would be a better step forward than reverting to 2008.   — Jess· Δ♥ 04:14, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

The US government did sponsor remote viewing research for a time, but it seems reasonable to remove the mention from the lead in the spirit of keeping things simple and not "distracting".

There is a minority of researchers who engage in parapsychological research from a skeptical/materialist point of view, so the term "critics" would keep things more general, but maybe there is a better term. Do you have a different suggestion?

The survey cited by Brian Josephson of AAAS council members and section leaders showed that approximately 69% of "elite scientists" considered parapsychology to be a legitimate scientific field. The other 31% are also scientists, but run counter to the majority. So there are scientists and science educators who support the legitimacy of parapsychology as scientific field, and scientists/educators who do not. If the term "counter-advocates" is unacceptable, then how else do we handle this in a neutral manner? 75.118.11.184 (talk) 04:55, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't see any source suggesting "69% of elite scientists considered parapsychology to be a legitimate scientific field." Can you cite that for me? The journal of parapsychology, cited above, gives a significantly lower number, and it is hardly a reliable academic source on this topic.   — Jess· Δ♥ 05:41, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, it was there, but it's hard to track things down in the middle of this lengthy discussion. So I've added it to the reflist: see the paper by McClenon.
I've just realised that what has been confusing my attempts to edit this page is the fact that there are two reflists in the same section, so if you don't find the ref. in one list the look for another one! --Brian Josephson (talk) 10:32, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

I also included a link to the actual table. The table is more relevant to the pseudoscience issue than the abstract, which may be the source of your comment above. --Brian Josephson (talk) 10:36, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Okay, here's an updated version based on the feedback that I've heard so far:

Parapsychology is the study of paranormal events including extrasensory perception, psychokinesis, and survival of consciousness after death. Parapsychological research involves a variety of methods including laboratory research and fieldwork, which have been conducted at privately-funded laboratories and some universities around the world. Experiments conducted by parapsychologists have included the use of pseudorandom number generators to test for evidence of psychokinesis, sensory-deprivation Ganzfeld experiments to test for extrasensory perception, and studies investigating the possibility of remote viewing. Though recognized as a legitimate scientific field by the American Association for the Advancement of Science, active parapsychologists have admitted difficulty in getting other scientists to accept their research, and some regard the field as psuedoscientific. Critics suggest that methodological flaws, rather than the anomalistic explanations offered by many parapsychologists, provide the best explanation for apparent experimental successes. To date, the mainstream scientific community has not accepted evidence of the existence of the paranormal.

I understand that there are some issues outstanding still, but hopefully we're getting closer to reaching consensus. Thoughts? 75.118.11.184 (talk) 15:44, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm prepared to accept that (subject to correction of the typo psuedoscienfic!). --Brian Josephson (talk) 15:59, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Original research "Some regard the field as pseudoscientific", not according to sources - Massimo Pigliucci, Maarten Boudry. (2013). Philosophy of Pseudoscience: Reconsidering the Demarcation Problem. University Of Chicago Press p. 158. ISBN 978-0-226-05196-3 "Many observers refer to the field as a "pseudoscience". When mainstream scientists say that the field of parapsychology is not scientific, they mean that no satisfying naturalistic cause-and-effect explanation for these supposed effects has yet been proposed and that the field's experiments cannot be consistently replicated." Michael W. Friedlander. (1998). At the Fringes of Science. Westview Press. p. 119. ISBN 0-8133-2200-6 "Parapsychology has failed to gain general scientific acceptance even for its improved methods and claimed successes, and it is still treated with a lopsided ambivalence among the scientific community. Most scientists write it off as pseudoscience unworthy of their time." Most scientists consider it pseudoscience, not some. 84.43.115.148 (talk) 16:20, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

The new version is significantly worse, for several reasons I've already indicated. @Brian, where does McClenon indicate "69% of elite scientists considered parapsychology to be a legitimate scientific field"? Thanks.   — Jess· Δ♥ 16:22, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

I see now that McClenon quotes a survey from 35 years ago about ESP (not parapsychology), which includes the 69% figure. I've responded to it in the section above.   — Jess· Δ♥ 16:44, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree that the new proposed version is significantly worse than the present lead, Jess. A few examples of why it's worse are distortions such as "recognized as a legitimate scientific field by the American Association for the Advancement of Science" (an AAAS listing does not confer formal recognition of scientific legitimacy) and suggesting that the scientific community has not accepted evidence of the paranormal "to date" (as if there is evidence being ignored, but imminent change is expected soon). Seriously, if the goal is to expand and improve the lead, look at the table of contents, read the sections of the article, and based on their relative weight, suggest how they might be summarized in a sentence or two. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:48, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

I see no particular reason to change the lede and there is no consensus discussion that this is something we should do. jps (talk) 17:16, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm intrigued. Is your position that unless everyone in this discussion wants a change (consensus), we keep things exactly as they are? So if a single person doesn't want a change then there isn't consensus, so that single person (or let's allow two people) don't want a change, they can in effect veto change? If that's not what you mean, then what do you mean? --Brian Josephson (talk) 17:37, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

I see more than one person who is opposed to the change. Let's deal in actual fact. jps (talk) 17:53, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Actual fact, sure! So you really believe that if more than one person is opposed to a change, then no change should be made. Really?? --Brian Josephson (talk) 18:00, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Did I write that? jps (talk) 18:46, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough, that was a bit of OR on my part based on what you wrote and I may have got it wrong. To get the situation clear then, the fact that more than one person is opposed to change does not, in your view, imply that there shouldn't be any change? --Brian Josephson (talk) 18:53, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, WP:CONSENSUS is more complicated than just counting accounts. jps (talk) 19:38, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

We could spend all day trading selected sound bytes to prop up one position or another, but we wouldn't get any closer to fashioning an encycopedia article that reflects reality. The most recent Arbcom ruling on this subject was that parapsychology is to be treated as a scientific discipline (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Paranormal#Three_layer_cake_with_frosting). It might be an 8-9 year old ruling, but the credentials of the field have not degraded any since then. However, we would not be doing the article any justice if we did not also acknowledge that there is a very vocal minority who consider the discipline to be a pseudoscience. The lead should begin first by defining in neutral terms what parapsychology is (the study of paranormal events/experiences), and then describe the controversy. The current lead negatively skewed from the start. If we can't resolve this on our own, then I suggest that we ask for some help from Wikipedia:DRN. 75.118.11.184 (talk) 20:44, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

That's not what the arbcom ruling says, and were you to take this to arbcom today, a decade after that ruling, I assure you there would be a much less sympathetic treatment of the subject. The fact that parapsychology is listed as an example of pseudoscience in WP:FRINGE/PS today (not a decade ago) should be a pretty clear indicator that things have, indeed, changed since 2008.   — Jess· Δ♥ 20:54, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

A parenthetical example on WP:FRINGE/PS does not merit more consideration than a clear, concise, and thorough ArbCom ruling. 75.118.11.184 (talk) 20:59, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Our policy matters when making content decisions. You're welcome to take this to Arbcom for clarification if you'd like. In the meantime, a decade-old ruling about editor behavior doesn't override our content guidelines, especially when they explicitly say they apply to this subject.   — Jess· Δ♥ 21:13, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Just an FYI that I've suggested at the talk page at WP:FRINGE that the parenthetical reference to parapsychology be reexamined in light of the fact that the current President of the American Statistical Association is quite outspoken about the scientific legitimacy of parapsychology. See http://www.amstat.org/publications/jse/v22n2/rossmanint.pdf. In the meantime, I think a neutrality tag is in order until this dispute is resolved. 75.118.11.184 (talk) 21:57, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Jessica Utts is a well known psychic believer. No evidence she represents the mainstream scientific community. 84.43.115.148 (talk) 22:07, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

If you are going to resort to ad hominem attacks, 84.43.115.148 then I have nothing further to discuss with you. 75.118.11.184 (talk) 22:25, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

No it is not an attack it is just factual. Jessica Utts believes in psychic powers, remote viewing and other silly things. David Marks discusses this in his book The Psychology of the Psychic. Basically the only people you can cite are fringe paranormal believers. You have no case at all. 84.43.115.148 (talk) 22:33, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

I get it! She gets appointed to these esteemed positions mentioned in the interview because people, like you, think her judgement is poor? Or might it be instead because they think she's a very competent individual? --Brian Josephson (talk) 22:13, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Nobody is immune from irrationalism. Look at Lynn Margulis or yourself. It is true that there are a minority of academics or scientists out there that end up endorsing wishful thinking and pseudoscience. 84.43.115.148 (talk) 22:29, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Why should anyone take Brian Josephson seriously? He thinks Uri Geller and other tricksters have psychic abilities [1]. JuliaHunter (talk) 10:33, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

JuliaHunter - your lack of civility toward your fellow Wikipedia editors has been noted. 75.118.11.184 (talk) 18:11, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Ad hominem comments such as the above are a violation of WP principles, and should be removed. --Brian Josephson (talk) 10:37, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

You are on record for claiming "I believe there are psychic abilities. They don't accord with any science we have at the moment, but maybe some future science will back them up with theories". You wrote that in 1973, we are in 2016 now and still no evidence or theories :) JuliaHunter (talk) 10:43, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Your quote is correct, but using it as justification for your commet suggests you don't understand the meaning of ad hominem comments. And as it happens, Fotini Pallikari and I have published a possible explanation in Foundations of Physics (it is referenced on my WP bio page), but I think better explanations will be found. --Brian Josephson (talk) 10:49, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Why didn't you publish in Science (journal)? After all, if we are to believe the parapsychology supporters that are here present, the organization which publishes that journal is supportive of parapsychology! jps (talk) 21:34, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Science is a very general journal. FoP was far more appropriate for a rather technical paper that most readers of Science would have been unable to follow. --Brian Josephson (talk) 22:24, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Extremely poor excuse. Science publishes technical breakthroughs in science all the time. If your paper is as good as you claim, you wouldn't have had to publish it in a low-impact, fringe journal. jps (talk) 22:33, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

You're not a scientist, are you? --Brian Josephson (talk) 22:43, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

I am, actually. I note that you seem fairly allergic to ask scientists their opinions on your claims. For example, below, you seemed almost gleeful at the prospect of not having to expose yourself to ridicule for your promotion of parapsychology. jps (talk) 23:07, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Do you publish in Science often yourself? I'd hardly describe our paper as a breakthrough, it just established a theoretical possibility, and Found. Phys. seemed an appropriate place for it. We didn't really consider alternatives, but probably Phys. Rev. would have published it if we'd sent it there. Antony Valentini had the same idea independently and he only published it in Physics Letters.
The 'gleefulness' is in your mind, and I have responded to your point in response to someone else below: in summary, I do discuss the ideas with my colleagues, who listen with interest and don't criticise me for holding them. Let's move on, shall we? --Brian Josephson (talk) 10:07, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

You are pretending that your inability to publish about parapsychology in high-impact, high-quality journals is your own choice in the matter. I contend it's because you cannot get past the peer review and you are either fooling yourself or intentionally obfuscating your own marginalization -- which is substantial. jps (talk) 12:23, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Neutrality issue

The article selectively quotes references that favour the disputed view that parapsychology is pseudoscience. Surveys quoted on the talk page suggest that in reality the majority of scientists consider the field of investigation to be legitimate science. Therefore I have added a {{POV}} tag to the article. --Brian Josephson (talk) 10:20, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

There are about 20 references in the article that indicate parapsychology is a pseudoscience. Every time these references are mentioned you seem to ignore them and go silent. Look at the very lead itself, six references there that show it is a pseudoscience. Do you just pretend these do not exist? Your statement is completely incorrect, references actually show the majority of scientists consider it to be pseudoscience (see the six references on the first line on the article). JuliaHunter (talk) 10:24, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

You don't seem to have read (or maybe are unable to understand) the 'conditions for removal' -- click on the link to see them. Under the circumstances, removal of the tag consitutes a serious violation of WP rules. --Brian Josephson (talk) 10:30, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

This is boring, your editing history on Wikipedia seems to be just trying to stir up controversies on various fringe topic talk-pages (you did the same on your friend Russell Targ, and countless others). Nobody cares about your support for pseudoscience. You and your IP friend are the only users who think there is a neutrality issue. There is no consensus here there is an issue. JuliaHunter (talk) 10:37, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

It is not the case that "nobody cares." Lots of people care. They just don't bother with Wikipedia because it is clear from this and other talk topics that editors like you assume that topics that are not in the scientific mainstream are necessarily pseudoscience. This is not true, but given that arguments not to your liking are blithely ignored, potential contributors who actually know something about this topic quickly learn that attempting to inject neutrality into this article is an utter waste of time. So the article remains a distorted cartoon worthy only for demonstrating how not to write an encyclopedia. Not signed. Come on, SineBot, are you asleep?

Exactly! Well said. --Brian Josephson (talk) 19:38, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

You seem to be forgetting about editor Novoneiro. 3 people, if that's all there is, seems a reasonable indicator of disquiet as to the pseudoscience characterisation. Anyway, if I may bore people with this again, the fact of the matter is that consensus, however defined, is not needed to place such a tag, only for removing it. Your claiming it is needed, as you appear to be doing, is specious. I may be wrong in this of course, and if anyone can show chapter and verse for needing consensus to place a tag please do so. --Brian Josephson (talk) 18:25, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Re the recent POV tagging and questions of neutrality, I find this essay especially helpful in explaining the confusion around why some fringe topics have an appearance of being unfairly marginalized in Wikipedia: WP:NOTNEUTRAL. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:50, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

There is nothing neutral about negatively defining an entire field of research in the first sentence of an encyclopedia article. By all means, the controversy and criticism should be acknowledged, but like the article, that discussion should happen one-half to two-thirds into the lead. Until this is addressed the POV tag should stay up. 75.118.11.184 (talk) 18:43, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

It's not our fault if all the most reliable independent sources indicate that this "field" of research is either a dead end or plagued by charlatans. jps (talk) 21:32, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

I think editors here tend to ignore evidence that is contrary to their assumptions. 75.118.11.184 (talk) 02:41, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't think that editors could agree upon whether paranormal phenomena are real. But we could reach consensus upon how the mainstream science sees parapsychology. The later should hold true regardless upon how one answers the former issue. Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:47, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

I am just looking at this wikipedia article and talk page for the first time. I don't have a lot of time for this sort of argument. However, I just wanted to note that I, and many other scientists who don't have time to hassle with anti-parapsychology zealots on Wikipedia, find the Wikipedia article on parapsychology to be a shame and a disgrace. This article illustrates the core problem with Wikipedia: a few people with extreme emotions about some topic and lots of time on their hands can hijack a page. Yeck. Look, this shouldn't be so complicated. Whether psi phenomena exist or not is still under dispute by various scientists -- that's true. However, the METHODS of the parapsychology field are certainly highly scientific, and so parapsychology obviously IS a science, not a pseudoscience. The fact that there are various charlatans associated with advocating or even studying psi phenomena, does not actually detract from the quality of parapsychology as a scientific field. This sort of nonsense makes me doubt the long-term viability of Wikipedia as an enterprise. Bengoertzel (talk) 00:43, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

The parapsychology does claim to use scientific methods, however its results are occasional significant correlations, further nothing impressive.

Research Progress Research on the polygraph has not progressed over time in the manner of a typical scientific field. It has not accumulated knowledge or strengthened its scientific underpinnings in any significant manner. Polygraph research has proceeded in relative isolation from related fields of basic science and has benefited little from conceptual, theoretical, and technological advances in those fields that are relevant to the psychophysiological detection of deception.

— The National Academy of Sciences, The Polygraph and Lie Detection, 2003, p. 213

The same could be said about parapsychology, just bracket the fuss of quantum flapdoodle. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:36, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

I think the distinction between fringe science and pseudoscience applies. I think it is clearly not the case that there is a consensus that parapsychology is pseudoscience, but I do think it is generally considered to be on the fringe.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 01:41, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

So, it is not the result of biased editors having too much time, it is a basic issue of WP:PAG, as explained at Wikipedia:Academic bias#Big Science. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:42, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

I dont think that follows.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 01:44, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

While I am not sure whether parapsychology is pseudoscience or fringe science, I think WP:PAG say that fringe subjects should be clearly labeled as fringe, not presented as having mainstream acceptance. Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:29, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, but labeling something as fringe is not the same as labeling it as pseudoscience. Being fringe simply means "outside of the mainstream area of research".·maunus · snunɐɯ· 02:38, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

For me this distinction does not mean much, since seems too much like splitting hairs, so I am prepared to give you the benefit of the doubt. Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:50, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Pseudoscience is something that claims to be science but which does not in fact correctly use the scientific method (for example by posing unfalsifiable hypotheses), fringe science are fields of scientific inquiry that mainstream science finds to be irrelevant "dead ends", unfashionable or unlikely to produce significant result. Sometimes the two overlap (for example sometimes scientists working on the fringe also use pseudoscientific reasoning or methods). Astrology is a pseudoscience, because it does not pose falsifiable questions. Parapsychology poses falsifiable questions, but the mainstream generally consider it to have been already experimentally falsified - some researchers just think it still merits a couple of more experiments to be absolutely sure. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 03:04, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Sort of, but don't conflate "parapsychology" and "scientific investigation of the paranormal". ESP can certainly be investigated scientifically, but by and large "parapsychology" doesn't do that. Quite some time ago there was legitimate investigation into ESP, but even then much of it was pseudoscience, lacking even the most basic of scientific rigor. Now, that describes nearly all of the field. Pseudoscience also includes more than just claims which are unfalsifiable. Read the second paragraph of pseudoscience; parapsychology relies almost exclusively on "confirmation rather than rigorous attempts at refutation, as well as contradictory and exaggerated claims. Our sources back all that up, of course. I agree with you that claims about ESP can be falsified and scientific investigation of ESP isn't intrinsically pseudoscience. I disagree that parapsychology isn't pseudoscience. Of course, that disagreement should be resolved with sourcing.   — Jess· Δ♥ 03:26, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Briefly, two quality references in non-fringe academic journals that run counter to your assertions. 1. A call for an open, informed study of all aspects of consciousness (http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fnhum.2014.00017/full) containing links to parapsychological studies published in mainstream scientific journals and signed by 100 university professors and 2. an interview with the current president of the American Statistical Association - starting on page five (http://www.amstat.org/publications/jse/v22n2/rossmanint.pdf). 75.118.11.184 (talk) 04:30, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Neither of those sources are high-quality. jps (talk) 12:18, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Frontiers in Human Neuroscience is the number one most-cited journal in psychology, the number one most-cited open access journal dedicated to neuroscience and the 10th most-cited journal in all of neuroscience. (http://blog.frontiersin.org/2015/11/20/quality-and-impact-analysis-frontiers-in-human-neuroscience/?utm_source=about-box&utm_medium=link&utm_campaign=Impact-Message). The Journal of Statistics Education is published by the American Statistical Association. Both articles are less than two years old.

Contrast that with the 6 references used to defend the pseudoscience label: only one comes from a peer-reviewed publication (Bunge's in BBS, which included many other opinions counter to his), and 2 come from an advocacy press (Prometheus Book, founded by Kurtz, a cofounder of CSICOP). Not a single of these references is current, and some are decades old. 75.118.11.184 (talk) 14:42, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Laughably unconvincing. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience is an open access journal with the attendant problems associated with that form of publishing. As for Utts' self-congratulatory hagiography, what would you have us do with that? Treat it as though she wasn't heavily involved in making it as one-sided as possible? Publish in Science or Nature, parapsychologists. Dispense with this beating around the bush. After all, if what they claim is true, the parapsychologists deserve Nobel Prizes for their work in medicine, chemistry, and physics! jps (talk) 15:26, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

The remark about problems associated with open access journals is a clear example of inadequate editing. He is ignoring Beall's 'Many new open-access publishers are trustworthy. But not all.' FHN clearly isn't one of the kinds of journals he is criticising, as it would hardly be 'the number one most-cited open access journal dedicated to neuroscience' if it were that kind. --Brian Josephson (talk) 15:40, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

[2]. You really have no idea, do you? jps (talk) 16:09, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

You may want to step down the incivility jps. That link criticizes the journals practices for contacting reviewers, not its reliability.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 16:33, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Obviously, this is the WP:REDFLAG we see waving. The person listed as the reviewer for parapsychology is a true believer in parapsychology. It's a corrupt system of getting reviewers who lack the requisite independence. Go ahead and e-mail Beall what he thinks about this paper if you don't believe me that his critique is relevant. jps (talk) 16:46, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm sure my colleagues, were they to take the time to look into the matter, would view jps's comments above as some of many desperate and implausible attempts by him and others to evade the issues. This is a very clear example of such. --Brian Josephson (talk) 15:24, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

You're clearly not going to show your colleagues these comments, though. So it doesn't help us to speculate as to what you think your colleagues are going to think, does it? jps (talk) 15:27, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Meaning of consensus

Some remarks made here lead me to wonder if some people don't quite understand the meaning of the word 'consensus'. The word means, according to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, 'a general agreement about something : an idea or opinion that is shared by all the people in a group'. It is clear for example (on the basis of this definition) that there is no consensus in this group that it is correct to consider parapsychology a pseudoscience. Equally, one may be able to find (and quote) a number of people asserting that the subject is a pseudoscience, but there may equally be a similar number who do not agree with this proposition, implying that there is no consensus as to this view. Indeed, as far as ESP (a major field of investigation within parapsychology generally) is concerned, the surveys cited indicate that the situation is that a majority of those questioned consider that this is a legitimate field of investigation. So I hope we can go ahead now without being distracted by the false understanding that 'many people believe X' can be equated with 'there is a consensus that X'. --Brian Josephson (talk) 15:31, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi Brian. See wp:con -Roxy the dog™ woof 15:40, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi Roxy, thanks for pointing this out:

Editors who maintain a neutral, detached, and civil attitude can usually reach consensus on an article through the process described above.

It would be marvellous if were to work out like that, but I'll be amazed if it does. --Brian Josephson (talk) 16:59, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

I suppose you could call it successful, after all we've got over five million articles nowadays, haven't we? I realise that there are disputes and stuff, but we've got policy and guideline to help us out, and by and large the Dispute space is a tiny proportion of the Article space, so we must be getting something right. -Roxy the dog™ woof 18:26, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't know. General opinion among my colleagues is that the level of accuracy in WP articles is not that high. Also, on the question of neutrality, I suspect that most of them would be shocked at the evident lack of neutrality in this article were I to show it to them. They don't have time of course to argue the point out here, and it needs to be borne in mind that the set of editors that contribute to pages like these is very far from representative of the whole. --Brian Josephson (talk) 18:43, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Why don't you try it out? I would start with just about anyone in the physics department. jps (talk) 21:31, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Fine! Just as long as you, and all the others who insist that the article is neutral, agree that the non-neutrality tag can be restored and remain, should my view be confirmed. Don't all rush at once! --Brian Josephson (talk) 21:50, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a suicide pact. If you can convince any colleagues of yours in the physics department under about the age of 40 or 50 to take your claims seriously and have them go on record with their agreement with your evaluation, let us know. Then we can verify the reliability of your report. jps (talk) 22:41, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

So sorry. I can't see the point in my taking the not inconsiderable time it would take to do the survey, involving finding a colleague willing to look through the article and then go through it step by step showing how biassed it is, unless there something significant to be gained by doing this. It would be crazy to do that. So sorry to disappoint you, have a good evening! --Brian Josephson (talk) 22:50, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

What is potentially to be gained is to have a personal colleague of yours explain to you how problematic your advocacy for pseudoscience is. You certainly seem immune to people on the internet doing so, and perhaps rightly so, you don't know us. I'm certain that you've been taken to task before for your problematic pseudoscientific claims. The hope is that maybe if a colleague you respect explains these things to you, you might take them more seriously than us. As it is, it seems you're too afraid to do so. Good evening, indeed! jps (talk) 23:12, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

If "taken to task" means "awarded a Nobel Prize for Physics" then I guess you win: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Josephson#Nobel_Prize. 75.118.11.184 (talk) 04:36, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Nobel Prizes are not inoculations against magical thinking. jps (talk) 12:19, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

I do in fact have conversations with colleagues discussing my ideas, I was only refusing to do what you suggested I do, i.e. wasting their time and mine going through the article in detail to see if they agree that it is highly biased, and as far as I am aware none of my colleagues take the position that you suggest people are taking. I don't think they would continue the conversation if that were the case. Of course my colleagues at Trinity particularly are unusually intelligent, and more open-minded than some editors here (who I think condemn themselves by their comments) seem to be. Just recently I got an email from a speaker at whose talk I had made a number of comments in the discussion 'appreciating my presence at the talk'. People like you are living in a fantasy world. Of course I do get attacked by outsiders who don't like my views but I see that as their problem.
(I expect someone will be jumping in saying this is not what talk pages are for. I agree entirely, but then I did not start this thread!).
PS: For the record, none of my colleagues has ever, during the course of the conversations I've referred to 'explained to me how problematic my advocacy for pseudoscience is' (in the words of your misguided suggestion). --Brian Josephson (talk) 09:39, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Actually, there was one a few years ago, who said to me that my arguments supporting the possibility of memory of water were misconceived. I tried out his analysis on the head of our research group when the opportunity arose, and he agreed that I was right and my distinguished critic was wrong. When people are emotional their thinking does tend to go off beam. --Brian Josephson (talk) 09:45, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

You live in an agnotological bubble. You are a general laughing stock and should be aware of this. jps (talk) 12:18, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

It is quite sad, jps, that you find it necessary to laugh in another editor's face, accuse them of making "pseudoscientific claims", and living "in an agnotological bubble", and what is worse, consider this relevant to the contents of an article. I consider this insulting, deprecating and uncivil, and no substitute for WP:NPOV, rather than "citing reliable, authoritative sources, especially when the topic is controversial or is on living persons. Editors' personal experiences, interpretations, or opinions do not belong" (per WP:FIVEPILLARS). I also find it tiring that I now need to justify my position: that I don't believe in the paranormal, that I am aware of others who have labelled the paranormal "pseudoscience" (and am happy to attribute some of them in the article, as I have done in previous articles). I also better mention that just because I have an interest in a subject, that it does not make me an advocate or supporter, just as if I had an interest in World War II, that does not make me an advocate of war, or even a supporter of those that do. --Iantresman (talk) 18:10, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Your sympathy for Rupert Sheldrake is very much in line with the pseudoscience promotion for which you were (and continue to be) sanctioned. jps (talk) 18:16, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

I wish you would use your expertise to discuss content and sources, rather than spend your time disparaging, putting-down and insulting the character of other editors. "Comment on content, not on the contributor" per WP:NPA --Iantresman (talk) 19:43, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Your predilection for supporting outrageous and, frankly, odiously incorrect pseudoscience makes it very difficult to have a reasonable conversation with you because you will not move on even after being shown that you are wrong. jps (talk) 19:18, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

WP:ASPERSIONS --Iantresman (talk) 19:45, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

WP:COMPETENCE. jps (talk) 19:53, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Psi phenomena are an anachronism. Nobody in science seriously believes in them any more. You can trace the arc of interest through treatment in hard science fiction - no way would Gil "The Arm" Hamilton make it into a new book by a hard-SF writer like Niven. There's no active supportive publishing in the mainstream journals, and what study there is focuses on the psychological and cognitive errors which cause people to make these false inferences - a fascinating study in itself.

As Brian Cox put it, "The problem with today’s world is that everyone believes they have the right to express their opinion AND have others listen to it. The correct statement of individual rights is that everyone has the right to an opinion, but crucially, that opinion can be roundly ignored and even made fun of, particularly if it is demonstrably nonsense!" Note that we are entitled to ridicule the view, not the person advancing it. I don't think goading Prof. Josephson is especially helpful. Guy (Help!) 11:53, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

I have no idea whether there are scientists who "believe" in parapsychology, but that is a completely separate issue to the fact that numerous university-based groups teach or research parapsychology (or anomalistic psychology), many of them qualified scientists with doctorates, which seems to contradict your statement, including:

• The Parapsychology Laboratory operated at Duke (1893-1984)
• The Koestler Parapsychology Unit at the University of Edinburgh.
• The Parapsychology Association, affiliated with the AAAS
• The Anomalous Experience Research Unit at the University of York
• The Anomalistic Psychology Research Unit at Goldsmiths, University of London
• Anomalistic Psychology and Parapsychology at the University of Derby
• And numerous courses and research at dozens of other universities

For record, I do not believe in the veracity of psi phenomenon myself, and am happy that your point of view is included subject to WP:V in order to maintain WP:NPOV. --Iantresman (talk) 13:13, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

The AAS affiliation is in name only. They haven't had a presence at any AAS conference since the 1970s, I believe. There hasn't been a vote on the affiliation since those decades past, but I imagine if there were one today they'd be removed. "Who cares?" is generally the answer I get when I ask AAS members whether they should be removed for inactivity. jps (talk) 19:16, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

No, an AAAS affiliate has to meet certain criteria, otherwise the AAAS could throw them out. They could also vote them out, but don't. The Parapsychology Association are a full affiliate, equal in standing to any other member. Of course that does not make any parapsychology phenomena true, which is good for Wikipedia which is interested in verifiability per WP:V. --Iantresman (talk) 19:43, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

WP:RTFA, or in this case, the criteria. It so happens that the council last took up the question when I said they did and, as such, that vote stands until a new one is taken in spite of whether the affiliate is a pseudoscience-promoting outfit like the PA or not. jps (talk) 19:52, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Just a quick FYI that a meta-analysis of Ganzeld research was presented at the national AAAS meeting 1993, and entire day of papers was presented at AAAS regional meeeting in 2012. And I just so happen to be attending the upcoming AAAS national meeting next month in DC as the PA's representative. Last I checked, it would take a two-thirds vote of the AAAS council to eject the PA, and given that the last known survey of AAAS members on the topic showed that 69% recognized parapsychology as a science, the likelihood of that happening in pretty slim. Annalisa Ventola _{(Talk | Contribs)} 20:16, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Well, after all that verbal firing, I would like to offer an extraordinary youtube which clearly shows some scientists testing an Indonesian man for PSI ability and then becoming completely convinced of his powers, which might show to some that there is at least some phenomena on this earth to which scientific (not pseudoscientific) researchers would do well to explore.

https://www.youtube.com/embed/Aos0hnwiHt8

Probrooks (talk) 18:46, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Youtube? jps (talk) 19:16, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Fraud Section Change Request

The section entitled Fraud contains an inaccuracy regarding J.D. MacFarland and the quote from Louisa Rhine's book, Something Hidden. MacFarland was a young researcher from Tarkio College in Missouri. There is no record of his having worked at the Rhine lab or that he was Rhine's assistant. MacFarland had 2 articles published in the Journal of Parapsychology in 1937 & 1938, but, according to Louisa's writings, after the falsification of records was discovered, he never published another article in the Journal of Parapsychology.

I would recommend the following change.

Original text: Rhine's assistant James D. MacFarland was also accused of fraud. Louisa Rhine wrote "Jim [James D. MacFarland] had actually consistently falsified his records... To produce extra hits Jim had to resort to erasures and transpositions in his records of his call series."[202]

Recommended text: A researcher from Tarkio College in Missouri, James D. MacFarland, was suspected of falsifying data to achieve positive psi results. Before the fraud was discovered, MacFarland published 2 articles in the Journal of Parapsychology (1937 & 1938) supporting the existence of ESP. Presumably speaking about MacFarland, Louisa Rhine wrote that in reviewing the data submitted to the lab in 1938, the researchers at the Duke Parapsychology Lab recognized the fraud. "...before long they were all certain that Jim had consistently falsified his records... To produce extra hits, Jim had to resort to erasures and transpositions in the records of his call series."[202] MacFarland never published another article in the Journal of Parapsychology after the fraud was discovered.

Tunsa (talk) 19:01, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

The Use of this Weasel word Pseudoscience in the first Sentence

Brian Josephson comes off here very clearly here with a lot of good points. I have been arguing against the use of this confusing buzzword typically used by skeptics, in the first sentence wikipedia entry for Crystal Healing, unknowingly as he was posting here on the same topic.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Crystal_healing#Use_of_the_word_Pseudoscience_in_the_first_line

My issue here, is why is this word being used and then linked to a skeptical web site, in the first sentence, isn’t this really just taking the piss?

Nobody claims crystal healing is a science at all, and the wikipedia article doesn’t even have any secondary sources to information about crystal healing! (Maybe if the page wasn’t so unkind to Crystal Healing in the beginning, some people who actually cared enough about this practice would help edit this page!)

I think there is a big difference between Crystal Healing and Parapsychology, because one of these methods is scientists trying to understand the world, and one of them has some random claims about the healing power of rocks which nobody can prove and doesn't seem very popular in the real world!

Pseudoscientific is pretty much a weasel word, it means almost nothing, and is used to denote that modern science considers this view heretical, a taboo topic outside of the realm of the easily explained and doesn’t want to entertain it, because it conflicts with the present dogma.

The scientific method is the scientific method, whatever the field of study.

“Indeed, the search for knowledge wherever it may lead inspired a group of notable scientists and philosophers to found in 1882 the Society for Psychical Research in London. Its purpose was “to investigate that large body of debatable phenomena… without prejudice or prepossession of any kind, and in the same spirit of exact and unimpassioned inquiry which has enabled Science to solve so many problems.” Some of the areas in consciousness they investigated such as psychological dissociation, hypnosis, and preconscious cognition are now well integrated into mainstream science. “

journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fnhum.2014.00017/full

What is fringe now, may be mainstream in 100 years. This is the perspective that people like Brian and I have, of many fields involving the depths of the human psyche. If you do not believe that, please consider that at least 10-20% of what is fringe now, will evolve and become part of the mainstream in the future at some point.

Extraordinary claims should be explored, and science is a tool to do that. To call an entire field devoted to exploring the edges of what science explores, where further evolution and discoveries can be made, a false or not true science just does not make ANY sense at all.

If science is not exploring, not understanding, not growing, what is it doing? Rotting in its certitude and dogma just like the church did for many centuries - that’s what!

The skeptical position is to doubt everything before proven and often also seems to actively and emotively denigrate any possibility which is not already proven or established by facts. This is when skepticism becomes a negative force, preventing and denying exploration and the possibility of evolution and big paradigm shifts.

Probrooks (talk) 20:06, 26 January 2016 (UTC)