Talk:Telepathy

Arbitration Ruling on the Treatment of Pseudoscience Untitled In December of 2006 the Arbitration Committee created guidelines for how to present pseudoscientific topics in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience. Neutral point of view as applied to science: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, a fundamental policy, requires fair representation of significant alternatives to scientific orthodoxy. Significant alternatives, in this case, refers to legitimate scientific disagreement, as opposed to pseudoscience. Serious encyclopedias: Serious and respected encyclopedias and reference works are generally expected to provide overviews of scientific topics that are in line with respected scientific thought. Wikipedia aspires to be such a respected work.

The four groupings found at WP:PSCI Obvious pseudoscience: Theories which, while purporting to be scientific, are obviously bogus, such as Time Cube, may be so labeled and categorized as such without more. Generally considered pseudoscience: Theories which have a following, such as astrology, but which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community may properly contain that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience. Questionable science: Theories which have a substantial following, such as psychoanalysis, but which some critics allege to be pseudoscience, may contain information to that effect, but generally should not be so characterized. Alternative theoretical formulations: Alternative theoretical formulations which have a following within the scientific community are not pseudoscience, but part of the scientific process.

Of relevance to "Generally considered pseudoscience" - The scientific consensus, as expressed by the National Science Foundation, has identified belief in ten subjects to be pseudoscientific beliefs. They are: extrasensory perception (ESP), that houses can be haunted, ghosts, telepathy, clairvoyance, astrology, that people can communicate mentally with someone who has died, witches, reincarnation, and channeling. (See Note 29)

Edits by Eameece

Eameece (talk · contribs) has been deleting reliable references from the article and claiming various sources as biased "skeptical" sources. He then adds in various pseudoscience from Rupert Sheldrake which is apparently from a tabloid newspaper. This user is obviously also 76.191.191.253 (talk · contribs) as they edited at a similar time. A similar IP 79.67.244.186 (talk · contribs) has also vandalized the parapsychology article.

In one of his edit summaries Eameece said Felix Planner was not a reliable source because he is an atheist and not a scientist. The atheist part is irrelevant but Planner was a scientist, he was a Professor of electrical engineering. He had multiple degrees in other science disciplines as well. Please do your research before doing mass deletions Eameece and familiarize yourself with Wikipedia policies on fringe theories and NPOV. Goblin Face (talk) 14:26, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't see how you guys can claim Planer's book is a science book. It is a book on superstitions. His atheism is not irrelevant; this book expresses a particular point of view. What studies does Planer cite in his book? Why do you cite so many views of skeptics, instead of scientific studies? What business do citations of peoples' views have on a wikipedia page devoted to a subject investigated by science? What does electrical engineering have to do with investigations of telepathy?

Many sources have reported on Sheldrake's experiment, which was funded by Cambridge University.

Why is it that wikipedia cannot write in a neutral point of view on these subjects, but insist on a dogmatic point of view? There are many studies of telepathy and ESP that show positive results. The correct approach is to imply a difference of opinion. Correcting this is not vandalism.76.191.191.253 (talk) 18:54, 28 April 2014 (UTC)eameece

"The correct approach is to imply a difference of opinion." Your mistake is in thinking that all opinions and sources are created equally. Well, there not, at least here in WP. Please read WP:NPOV and WP:RS carefully. They don't mean what you want them to. Yes, we do give a very strong preference to mainstream scholarly views and sources, and assign them more WP:WEIGHT and credibility than WP:FRINGE views. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 19:03, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

76.191.191.253 there is an entire section on the article that mentions various case studies, such as Rhine's experiments, Ganzfeld, dream telepathy, Zener card experiments etc. All these experiments either contained sensory leakage issues, methodological flaws etc or were not independently replicated. There is no scientific evidence for telepathy or any other alleged psychic phenomena, this is what the reliable references say, so this is what is on Wikipedia. Wikipedia does not give equal weight to fringe pseudoscientific views. The mainstream scientific consensus is that telepathy does not exist. Rupert Sheldrake's pseudoscientific experiments into dog telepathy and things like that have not been replicated. You can read criticism of those experiments on Sheldrake's own article.

You wrote "There are many studies of telepathy and ESP that show positive results", yes maybe in fringe or pseudoscientific parapsychology journals but not in mainstream science journals. Goblin Face (talk) 19:21, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

I admit I seem to have run into a buzz saw here; wikipedia is overwhelmingly biased toward dogmatic, traditional, materialist science and the denial of any evidence to the contrary. Others have told me this, and now that I see how my revisions from many months ago were not allowed, that dogmatism seems confirmed beyond all doubt. The sources you rely on tend to be the Amazing Randi and Skeptical Inquirer and books on superstition rather than actual scientific investigations. You require that definite statements be made affirming one point of view among scientists, rather than indicating that a range of opinion among scientists exists; even though that's the case. Other subsequent research validates the earlier case studies like those of Rhine; you selectively choose the studies that do not, and delete links to such studies, because this conforms to orthodox opinion. You assume parapsychology studies are automatically invalid, just because it is parapsychology, as if parapsychologists or other social scientists and psychologists are automatically incapable of doing science. Dog telepathy studies have no relevance here. It's fine to give weight to prevalent views, but to make such definite statements that they are certainly correct, once and for all, is certainly not neutrality in my opinion. It's too bad that wikipedia is not a reliable source for information on paranormal subjects. 76.191.191.253 (talk) 20:15, 28 April 2014 (UTC)eameece

Yes Wikipedia is biased in favor of the orthodoxy. Check out Laws of science. Nothing about psychokinesis, ESP, mediums, etc. You can try to change the encyclopedia's policies if you want, but this article is the wrong place to start. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:43, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

76. has been temporarily blocked for disruptive editing but most of his comments about the article are wrong and quite dishonest. He says "Amazing Randi and Skeptical Inquirer and books on superstition rather than actual scientific investigations" are being used on the article. Has he even read the article? James Randi is not mentioned on the article at all, and the Skeptical Inquirer is mentioned in only one reference and it is notable because it included comments from James Alcock.

76. also says references that discuss investigations into telepathy are not on the article? But there are over thirty references from psychologists and scientists such as Martin Gardner, Gordon Stein, Andrew Neher, Bergen Evans, C. E. M. Hansel, Richard Wiseman, Terence Hines, Thomas Gilovich, Massimo Pigliucci and Mario Bunge etc which discuss investigations into telepathy. There are also scientific papers on the article such as Rudski, J. M. (2002). Hindsight and confirmation biases in an exercise in telepathy. Psychological Reports, 91, 899–906. Goblin Face (talk) 00:10, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

• For anyone reading this in the future, I would like to comment about Wikipedia's bias toward "dogmatic, traditional, materialist science and the denial of any evidence to the contrary" above. Imagine a reader who has heard that cold fusion is an exciting development that will be used to provide energy at very low cost, eliminating the need to burn fossil fuels to generate electricity. So the reader turns to cold fusion to get an overview. What "bias" would the reader want the article to adopt? Would the reader be helped by a 50–50 balance between what "some scientists" claim versus what excited proponents proclaim? Or, should the article point out that no one has ever got any useful power from cold fusion, and the prospect that it will light up a city is very dim? There are plenty of websites that push all sorts of fringe claims—by contrast, Wikipedia should provide information about what is actually known on a subject. Johnuniq (talk) 00:16, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Requests by nick5990

Please add as a reference and external link on the telepathy article page, since it is currently not listed. This will provide readers with a more informed view of the topic and past scientific research into telepathy.

Also please note that there are presently no citations to previously published scientific journals for the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs for "delusions" and "psychosis" under "Origins of the concept". Thus it is likely this is someone's opinion rather than based on sound sources. These 2 paragraphs should be removed if not questioned until their verifiability is confirmed. Nick5990 (talk) 09:44, 6 July 2014 (UTC)nick5990