Talk:Astral projection

Bias ?

"There is no known scientific evidence that astral projection as an objective phenomenon exists." This sentence is non-factual and the whole section thereafter points towards skeptic bias. The WikiPedia article dedicated to Out-of-body experiences https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Out-of-body_experience clearly states that the term "Out-of-body experience" was created by researchers as an alternative term for the belief-centric "astral projection". The phenomenon is thus observable and under scientific study by multiple research groups. It's also a pretty common phenomenon, with one in ten persons having experienced an OBE at least once. Given the extensive scientific work mentioned in the "Out-of-body experience" article, I think that this section needs to be rewritten as a summary of that article and pointing to it.--Nikosgpet (talk) 20:25, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

“We know how many possibilities there are for dimensions and we know what the dimensions do." is a ridiculous statement as it can have no basis in science, and a citation to a newspaper article doesn't hold much water. With no counter, or indication that it is opinion not fact, it is misleading and should have no place in a balanced article.31.53.198.23 (talk) 22:17, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Again, you should read up on what CERN has been doing. I don't mean just browse a few of their webpages, i'm talking about looking about what they've actually published from interviews and the like. Because science. (praise our lord and saviour science) (have you prayed to science today?)

Seems like a bit of a doctrine really. This science. I used to be a very scientifical man, until i learned what an abomination science had become. Brain in jar theory. Have fun proving yourself out of it. Sorry if i'm totally doing the markup wrong for replying to people here....

that might or might not be true, but it is a quote from a published source. There is a challenge to be made here though, which is that of whether or not a spokesperson from the Queensland skeptics society is wp:rs when it comes to quoting in an encyclopedia article in a section titled "scientific response". To place a quote under such a heading he would have to have some relevant position in the field he is talking about. I will have a look at the source and invite other editors to do the same. If the conclusion is that he is not wp:rs the the quote may need to be removed or the section title changed to be inclusive of skeptical responses from outside scientific fields. I agree that there's an issue.140.207.8.242 (talk) 05:40, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

a cursory glance at available material reveals 'Bob Bruce is a retired industrial engineer who has worked widely in government and private enterprise. He currently works as an IT Orange Card with Education Qld. He holds a double major in Psychology. He has been President of the Queensland Skeptics Association Inc since the turn of the century.' http://www.asc.asn.au/blog/2016/02/05/asc2016-bob-bruce/Edaham (talk) 05:46, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

It seems Bruce is talking about very basic mathematics, the type engineers know inside out. That means he is amply qualified to say it. "Dimension" is one of those words scientists and their ilk are well-acquainted with, but which sound high-level to laymen. Thus, they are used by crackpots to impress those laymen. "Energy" and "field" are other such words. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:54, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

I take it that that is your suggestion to leave the paragraph alone. Thanks for your response. For my part, I'd prefer that section to be populated with information taken from scientific journals containing commentary from actual scientists. I don't have an issue with what Bruce said. A source is a source. I have issue with him being quoted in a section which deals with scientific consensus, because he isn't a scientist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edaham (talk • contribs) 09:08, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Scientific journals do not mention such bollocks as astral projection. Skeptics are as scientific as it is going to get. Robert Todd Carroll and James Randi, who are quoted in the same section, aren't scientists either but what they and Bruce say is pretty what a scientist would say - indeed, Rawcliffe and Wiggins do say the same thing. Maybe we should change the heading? --Hob Gadling (talk) 22:55, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Skeptics are as scientific as it is going to get

Actually skeptics are the first to dismiss science to begin with. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academic_skepticism (It's LITERALLY on the wiki, how is this flying over everyones' heads?)

Skepticism means you accept that there is NO certainty. There's no way to verify if science is true. It could all be some hallucination produced by your mind, or the mind of God. Try proving me wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.100.84.247 (talk • contribs) 2018 (UTC)

I have new knowledge for you: Words can have more than one meaning!

Skeptic is one of them. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:01, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Some recommended reading from the CIA

Some pertaining to out of body experiences: https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP96-00788R002000240008-7.pdf
i'm not familiar with the material, point being: if the CIA says these are recommended reading then i'd argue these sources hold some weight.
On a different note, i've added to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kundalini (talk page) a request to add Itzhak Bentov as a source on kundalini.
(Because it is alleged his research on kundalini is scientifically reputable). Sorry if i'm using too many line breaks. I'm new to this. I know it's no excuse, but i'm trying to learn the ropes.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.100.84.247 (talk) 14:20, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

What i have done and why

I do not want to waste my time (hours of my day) going back and forth across the talk and article page to contemplate this.
Here is what i am changing and why.
"Other than anecdotal eyewitness accounts, there is no known evidence of the ability to astral project, the existence of other planes, or of the Akashic Record."ok
Claims of scientific evidence of astral projection are pseudoscientific.don't know about this exactly. This seems kind of biased. It could be possible to apply the scientific method of inquiry on phenomenon such as astral projection
There is no scientific evidence that there is a consciousness or soul which is separate from normal neural activity or that one can consciously leave the body and make observations.ok hold up
Ok, these are almost contradictory to one another. To say there is no KNOWN evidence is sortof an accurate statement.
Then we get there IS NO scientific evidence.
I am going to change this statement to include falsifiability/according to falsifiability principle. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability
To save myself some time, i shall simply add known to this sentence too. there is no KNOWN scientific evidence seems more apt/accurate.
(There is no commonly/widespread evidence of such and such would be a more accurate sentence but w/e)
Also we should define scientific evidence. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirical_evidence
Empirical evidence relates to the senses. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirical_evidence
One could argue that Astral Projection is a sensory experience. Ultimately empirical in nature.
We also have the scientific method which gets rather ambigious, see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_evidence
Concept of scientific proof While the phrase "scientific proof" is often used in the popular media,[13] many scientists have argued that there is really no such thing. For example, Karl Popper once wrote that "In the empirical sciences, which alone can furnish us with information about the world we live in, proofs do not occur, if we mean by 'proof' an argument which establishes once and for ever the truth of a theory".[14][15] Albert Einstein said: The scientific theorist is not to be envied. For Nature, or more precisely experiment, is an inexorable and not very friendly judge of his work. It never says "Yes" to a theory. In the most favorable cases it says "Maybe," and in the great majority of cases simply "No." If an experiment agrees with a theory it means for the latter "Maybe," and if it does not agree it means "No." Probably every theory will someday experience its "No" - most theories, soon after conception.[16]
So, is it accurate to say there is NO scientific evidence of astral projection? I would beg to differ. ^ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.100.84.247 (talk) 14:41, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Tough. Learn to sign your posts. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 16:23, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

There is evidence of neurological electrochemical processes and structures and evidence that much if not all experience derives from it. There indeed is no evidence that the brain would only be an antenna connected to a soul or evidence supporting quantum mysticism (although humans naturally tend to insert the supernatural in every gap of knowledge to explain experiences and justify beliefs, etc). Relevant would be WP:ABIAS and WP:YESPOV (we can state as fact what is the common modern understanding and the encyclopedia relies on what academics write about it). Holographic universe, quantum mysticism, are all interesting, but we cannot describe them as if they were supported by scientific evidence when they are not... In terms of science, they are indeed WP:FRINGE ideas. —PaleoNeonate – 16:42, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Related: [1]. —PaleoNeonate – 17:00, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

The argument seems to boil down to “there is no way to be sure about anything and every definition is open to interpretation, so why can’t we give some credibility to astral projection”. That may work for discussions on Internet forums but on Wikipedia we go by mainstream scientific opinion published in reliable independent sources. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:42, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Roxy, my argument is not that there IS known scientific evidence of AP I am saying the statement there is no scientific evidence appears to hold a bias! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view It is as though the editor who wrote there is NO scientific evidence of AP is literally leaving NO ROOM for the possibility of scientific evidence existing outside his frame of reference! It pertains to falsifiability and is a very simple edit to correct into a neutral and unbiased statement. I am not giving astral projection any weight or bias. I am looking at the article objectively. If i read there is no scientific evidence of astral projection This is a blanket statement which will automatically lead me to beleive that A) There has and never has there ever been ANY scientific evidence EVER on astral projection B) There likely never will or can be scientific evidence for astral projection and C) That we have the knowledge to make such statements, that we have collectively analyzed ALL claims of scientific evidence of astral projection. (this is simply untrue, we simply do not have the data to make such BROAD and BLANKETING statements.

And yes, i do agree that WP:ABIAS are relevant, this is also why i am reverting the edit to make a more objectively valid point of view. There's no bias to this. I have no affinity with astral projection other than a few anecdotal experiences. I am merely looking at claims that are PRESENTED AS UNFALSIFIABLE. I am editing this back to there is no known scientific evidence of astral projection. If this edit doesn't stick then you might as well change the other sentence to disclude the word known too...... (There is no known scientific evidence that astral projection as an objective phenomenon exists.) <- Scientific reception ( There is no scientific evidence that there is a consciousness or soul which is separate from normal neural activity or that one can consciously leave the body and make observations.) (First paragraph) So why can we get it right somewhere halfway through the article, yet you insist on reverting this change from an accurate statement into bias? To say there is no known evidence of such and such is completely accurate and objective and a neutral point of view. It's not even redundant. It seems the only reason to assert that there is definitely and absolutely no evidence (despite not having the data available to make such a claim with any definite accuracy), is due to bias. If you decide to revert this edit again due to your own personal bias then i implore you also to change the part in scientific reception to: There is no scientific evidence that astral projection as an objective phenomenon exists) (instead of, there is no known scientific evidence that astral projection as an objective phenomenon exists). Seems like bias is playing a huge part here, but it's not from my part. I'm just trying to prevent wikipedia from spreading literal misinformation. (as the claim there is no scientific evidence could literally be false independant of the claim there is no such evidence.) 159.100.84.247 (talk) 13:31, 22 July 2018 (UTC) Also, i would like to add that the claim there is no scientific evidence of astral projection etc falls under the realm of assumptions and not of objective factual. Why would we keep it this way? What are we to do in 10 years time when there could/might very well be scientific evidence of astral projection. We simply do not have all the scientific data. The statement there is no such evidence could be a lie. Why risk having a lie on wikipedia when a simple added word prevents actual and possible incorrectness? (i'll tell you why, i think it's because people are biased against this article and are therefore defending such a bias) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.100.84.247 (talk) 13:38, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Being peer-reviewed and published is part of what turns research into scientific evidence. So "known" is redundant. Lenina Libera (talk) 13:56, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Still seems like a bias issue to me. I even quoted from the wikipedia entry for scientific evidence. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_evidence Also seems like circular reasoning with heavy notes of bias when contrasted with Scientific claims of evidence of astral projection are psuedoscience. That's a catch 22. A contradiction.(Because we have set up a model in which no scientific evidence can ever be claimed, ergo, even mentioning scientifical evidence of astral projection is redundant. Should i remove the entire sentence and sources? I would have thought putting known as a minor edit would have sufficed. :/ 159.100.84.247 (talk) 20:36, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

"Still seems like a bias issue to me. I even quoted from the wikipedia entry for scientific evidence."

It is not bias. Wikipedia:Neutral point of view says nothing about saying that there is no scientific evidence for astral projection, and the quote you gave does not prove your point. Sure, all of our theories could be disproven tomorrow. How does this imply that we should give credit to all theories? It doesn't.

"Also seems like circular reasoning with heavy notes of bias when contrasted with Scientific claims of evidence of astral projection are psuedoscience."

Circular reasoning is a type of reasoning in which the proposition is supported by the premises, which is supported by the proposition, creating a circle in reasoning where no useful information is being shared.

How is calling unscientific claims of scientific accuracy pseudoscience circular reasoning?

"A contradiction.(Because we have set up a model in which no scientific evidence can ever be claimed, ergo, even mentioning scientifical evidence of astral projection is redundant."

Scientific evidence is real. It is evidence from the scientific method. Again, our theories could be wrong. But how does that now imply that something not having scientific evidence is a contradiction?

"Should i remove the entire sentence and sources?"

There's no reason to.

"I would have thought putting known as a minor edit would have sufficed."

It's the same thing except it gives the appearance of more credibility to astral projection. No scientific evidence means that no one has used the scientific method to show that astral projection is true. Wyrm127 (talk) 16:23, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

While I get what she is trying to say in terms of "no scientific evidence" vs "no known scientific evidence", I don't think it's necessary to make that change here. If, in the future, someone ever does develop scientific evidence supporting astral projection or any related traits, we can easily update this article at that point with any relevant reliable sources that cover that experiment. Until then, there's no real reason to hedge the phrasing of this article because of something that might happen in the future. Alicb (talk) 18:56, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

References

Picture for Egyptian section

Hi guys, here's a (the?) picture of the Egyptian Ka...[2] Presumably it's in the public domain seeing as it's thousands of years old. Can someone lovely paste it in for me? Cheers. 88.111.138.227 (talk) 09:44, 22 July 2019 (UTC) A picture would be nice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Astral Leap (talk • contribs) 11:11, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

In popular culture

This section is completely unsourced and is as usual bait for more indiscriminate entries. I thought about deleting it, but decided to tag it and open this discussion instead. It's possible that some entries are notable enough and could easily be sourced... Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 11:26, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Pseudoscience?

I've never heard Astral projection ever called a science, or ever heard claims that it was somehow scientific. The phenomenon itself is real. Whether or not it entails actually leaving one's body, that's a separate issue and fair game for criticism. People DO experience phenomenon whereby they perceive leaving their bodies during certain phases of sleep (see Out of Body Experience) 139.138.6.121 (talk) 22:55, 31 July 2021 (UTC)