Talk:Parapsychology

Hypnosis

Hypnosis seems noticeably absent from the article. Considering it is the most scientifically accepted form of parapsychology it clearly deserves to be included — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.207.131.31 (talk) 10:45, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

"Tiny"

You can't say "tiny" in an academic article. It's meaningless. Either you say "small", and leave it ambiguous as to how far they are from a strong correlation, or you actually give a measure of the statistical deviation. "tiny" is not a term that you would ever see in a paper presenting statistics so nobody has a reference as to what it means in this context. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.175.102.1 (talk) 01:49, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

We will follow the source in their description. [1] in their book by Oxford University which is sufficient to prove your claim invalid. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:58, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Tiny cause with huge impact: polar instability through strong magneto-electric-elastic coupling in bulk EuTiO3. Your argument is invalid. Guy (Help!) 10:21, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Lead sentence

There may be better ways to word the opening sentence, but describing the subject as being "regarded by skeptics as a pseudoscience" is not one of them. Earlier versions of the article called it a "discipline", which might be preferable. --McGeddon (talk) 12:03, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

I would say that in general the lead is not particularly informative, nor does it outline what is contained in the body of the article, as a lead should. Check out what the lead looked like on the day that it received featured article status:

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.

It might be helpful to look at the past successes of this article in this case. --Annalisa Ventola _{(Talk | Contribs)} 14:57, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

That version has some problems with due weight, but what it does well is explaining the level of acceptance. Calling the whole field pseudoscience is incorrect, since some researchers do use valid and rigorous methods. What should be emphasized is that the accepted research has not validated the existence of the phenomena under study. Rhoark (talk) 15:49, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

That is like saying that we cannot call the ocean "water" because some of the space has fishes. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:54, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Ocean currently defines it as "a body of saline water that composes much of a planet's hydrosphere". If that were to be replaced with just "water", it would indeed be incorrect. Rhoark (talk) 16:14, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

I think there is nothing inherent about pseudoscience that says that researchers who engage in pseudoscience must also necessarily use invalid or less-than-rigorous methods to come to their conclusions. One of the things Richard Wiseman points out is that parapsychologists actually are more rigorous than many psychologists in their statistical approaches to data, but that this just speaks poorly of psychology rather than being an effective apologia for parapsychology. jps (talk) 16:03, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

That's actually the definition of pseudoscience. Rhoark (talk) 16:14, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

No, it isn't. The definition of pseudoscience is "a claim, belief or practice which is incorrectly presented as scientific, but does not adhere to a valid scientific method, cannot be reliably tested, or otherwise lacks scientific status." There are ways to be pseudoscientific without any consideration of the methods of research whatsoever. jps (talk) 16:31, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

The only part of that which offers an escape is the elastic "lacks scientific status", which if interrogated for a precise meaning will probably not lead to anything other than unscientific methodology. Rhoark (talk) 22:27, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

I think if we want to maintain NPOV then "Parapsychology is the study of..." would be more appropriate, followed by some commentary on the field's limited acceptance by mainstream scientists. Pseudoscience - in addition to it's negative connotation - is also far too specific and excludes the study of the paranormal as it is approached by historians and philosophers. --Annalisa Ventola _{(Talk | Contribs)} 16:48, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Part of the problem with that formulation is that it is possible to study paranormal events without engaging at all in parapsychology. jps (talk) 17:14, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

"is possible" or "would be possible"? I'm not sure what you're getting at. Rhoark (talk) 19:33, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

E.g. many of the people at the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry who study paranormal events do not consider themselves parapsychologists. jps (talk) 20:07, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Tough cookies? Rhoark (talk) 20:25, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Or, we can go by what reliable sources say which identify parapsychology as being the aspects which are inclined to pseudoscience. Wikipedia generally prefers to follow reliable sources. jps (talk) 21:09, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Handwaving about what things are "inclined to" is evading the reliable sources, not following them. Reliable sources attest to activities within parapsychology that are pseudoscientific, and activities that are genuinely scientific. The latter include studies with negative results, meta-analyses, studies of deliberate deceptions, and neurological phenomena that are subjectively perceived as supernatural (near-death experiences, hypnosis, blindsight, etc.) Rhoark (talk) 22:36, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

"Parapsychology" as it is generally discussed includes people who believe in psychic phenomenon trying to prove that it exists using pseudoscientific means. If you can find a group of active parapsychologists who do not believe in psychic phenomena, then maybe you'd have my ear. jps (talk) 20:37, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Interesting point. The Skeptic's Dictionary says: "Parapsychology is the search for evidence of paranormal phenomena, such as ESP and psychokinesis. Most scientists try to explain observed and observable phenomena. Parapsychologists try to observe unexplainable phenomena." That seems to me to be a pretty accurate and neutral summary, which also identifies why it's pseudoscience. Guy (Help!) 10:30, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Scientists often gather phenomenological data for which there is not yet an explanatory theory. There's not a definition of pseudoscience that stands up to scrutiny, except that it presents itself as science without following the scientific method. Rhoark (talk) 18:03, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Not really. Most scientists who gather phenomenological data have theories that explain most of it. Outliers can become interesting, but theory tends to precede experimentation. There is no extant parapsychology theory which is one of the big reasons it is considered pseudoscience. It is similar to perpetual motion. jps (talk) 20:40, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Parapsychology as "Alternative theoretical formulations"

I think editors here might be interested in this call that appeared in the journal Frontiers in Human Neuroscience: http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fnhum.2014.00017/full

This call is signed by over 100 professors at universities, including the current president of the American Statistical Association (Jessica Utts) and several big figures in academia. The content of the article suggests that the major theories in parapsychology may be considered "alternative theoretical formulations which have a following within the scientific community are not pseudoscience, but part of the scientific process."

I hope that editors will re-think their categorization in light of this reference. --Annalisa Ventola _{(Talk | Contribs)} 17:51, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Briefly reviewing that article, it appears that the authors are saying that parapsychology is widely considered pseudoscience, but that (in the author's opinion), it should not be. We should report the widely held view. Many of our sources indicate parapsychology fits this category (yours included, apparently), so that's what we should report. To suggest parapsychology is "a part of the scientific process" in any way would require extensive sourcing.   — Jess· Δ♥ 18:09, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

The link says quite the opposite. It says some topics with present mainstream acceptance (hypnotism, pre-conscious cognition) emerged from parapsychology, and that only a minority of scientists dismiss parapsychology as pseudoscience a priori. Rhoark (talk) 18:22, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Pretty good analysis of the Frontiers in Human Neuroscience/Cardeña paper in Psychology Today. - LuckyLouie (talk) 22:40, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

The journal being referenced is not very reliable. E.g., check out this. We need a better source for this dubious claim that only a minority of scientists dismiss parapsychology (a rather audacious claim). Open letters of this sort have also been found to be a feature of other pseudoscience campaigns including creationism, global warming denial, alternative medicine, ufology, and big bang denialism. Looks to me like parapsychology is just following in these well-trodden pseudoscience footsteps. jps (talk) 18:29, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

@Rhoark. The first link I checked of the surveys cited seems to indicate the opposite. [2] - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:34, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

@Rhoark, you're correct. The article says "a clear minority", and I read "majority" while skimming. That's quite a claim, and we'd need better sourcing for it than this one article. Their only citation is wikademia, which lists studies between 1938 and 1982. That certainly doesn't encourage belief that this represents the current opinion of the scientific community.   — Jess· Δ♥ 18:55, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Citing Wikademia(!) is not a good sign for a paper. Yikes! jps (talk) 19:25, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

I think that many of the lessons from Project Steve are applicable here. The sources in the link -- which are the only relevant parts as far as Wikipedia is concerned -- seem less than convincing. For instance considering the failed replications of Bem's "time-traveling porn" thing, citing the Bem paper makes rather the opposite point, doesn't it? It would be better if you directly provided some of the best sources that you believe support your case. Manul ~ talk 20:05, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

• This article is already covered by the arbitration findings on fringe topics / pseudoscience. No other arbitration case is required, I think. Guy (Help!) 22:44, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

I do not think there is an alternative theoretical formulation that has been put forward; it's just a big tent under which one can find both science and pseudoscience. Rhoark (talk) 00:36, 25 June 2015 (UTC

Guy, if you want to talk about ArbCom findings, then I think you will find this one pertinent to our discussion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Paranormal#Conflation_of_parapsychology_with_unscientific_concepts

Note the language here: "In addition to mainstream science which generally ignores or does not consider the paranormal worthy of investigation, there is a scientific discipline of parapsychology which studies psychic phenomena in a serious scientific way..." --Annalisa Ventola _{(Talk | Contribs)} 01:59, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

That arbcom case is interesting, but also from 7 years ago, and I doubt those statements would still pass today. They are certainly not supported by sources as far as I can tell. Right now, these are the sources we're using for "pseudoscience":

Sources
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Daisie Radner, Michael Radner. (1982). Science and Unreason. Wadsworth. pp. 38-66. ISBN 0-534-01153-5 Paul Kurtz. Is Parapsychology a Science?. In Kendrick Frazier. (1981). Paranormal Borderlands of Science. Prometheus Books. pp. 5-23. ISBN 0-87975-148-7 "If parapsychologists can convince the skeptics, then they will have satisfied an essential criterion of a genuine science: the ability to replicate hypotheses in any and all laboratories and under standard experimental conditions. Until they can do that, their claims will continue to be held suspect by a large body of scientists." Mario Bunge. (1987). Why Parapsychology Cannot Become a Science. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 10: 576-577. Terence Hines. (2003). Pseudoscience and the Paranormal. Prometheus Books. pp. 113-150. ISBN 1-57392-979-4 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." 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."

Those seem fairly strong, but I have no doubts we could do even better. I see no sources whatsoever describing it as in any way scientific.   — Jess· Δ♥ 13:05, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for providing these sources, Jess. It is useful to understand the basis on which editors here are classifying parapsychology as a pseudoscience. However, have you noticed that all but one of your sources are older than the ArbCom decision above? As for sources describing parapsychology as scientific, I am currently gathering those, but here are three in which the famous skeptic Chris French is on record as saying that his opinion parapsychology is a real science:

French, C. (2009). Anomalistic psychology. In M. Cardwell, L. Clark, C. Meldrum, & A. Wadeley (eds.). Psychology A2 for AQA A. 4th ed. London: Collins. Pp. 472-505. ISBN: 978-0007255047

Holt, N., Simmonds-Moore, C., Luke, D., & French, C. C. (2012). Anomalistic Psychology. London: Palgrave Macmillan. Chapter 5. ISBN: 978-0230301504

French, C. C., & Stone, A. (in press). Anomalistic Psychology: Exploring Paranormal Belief and Experience. London: Palgrave Macmillan. ISBN: 978-1403995711

So to summarize, so far I have evidenced 100 university professors publicly legitimizing the field of parapsychology in a mainstream scientific journal, Wikikpedia's on Arbitration Committee describing parapsychology as a science, and one of the most prominent skeptics in the field describing parapsychology as a science. Tell me, what more do you need? --Annalisa Ventola _{(Talk | Contribs)} 17:15, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Can you give links or isbns for your sources, please? The version of Anomalistic Psychology I checked is only 325 pages long, so I can't verify your reference to page 472-505.   — Jess· Δ♥ 17:34, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

My apologies. Links and ISBN #'s added above. --Annalisa Ventola _{(Talk | Contribs)} 17:51, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I'm still having a lot of trouble. I checked every isbn on both amazon and google books and wasn't able to find a preview, so these works are inaccessible to me. Do you have them? You say they support the idea that parapsychology is a science. Could you provide quotes to that effect? Thanks.   — Jess· Δ♥ 18:08, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

French's position appears to be summarized here. Looks more like a personal opinion qualified by an IF/THEN condition than a rousing endorsement. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:30, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Here's a lengthy quote (important for context) from the psychology textbook linked above:

The Scientific Status of Parapsychology

Having described the typical characteristics of pseudoscience, we can now consider the scientific status of parapsychology as a discipline. Anyone can call themselves a parapsychologist and there is no doubt that many of those who do would fit the bill as pseudoscientists perfectly. For this reason, we need to be very clear what we mean by parapsychology in this context as it would obviously not be fair to judge any discipline as a whole on the basis of its worst practitioners. The type of parapsychology that we will consider is that exemplified by contributions to the Journal of Parapsychology and the research carried out by members of the Parapsychological Association which became an affiliated organization of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), amid much controversy, in 1969.

In a true scientific spirit, we will draw upon the empirical approach taken by Mousseau (2003) in addressing this issue. She compared the contents of a sample of mainstream scientific journals (e.g. British Journal of Psychology, Molecular and Optical Physics) with a sample of ‘fringe’ journals (e.g. Journal of Parapsychology, Journal of Scientific Exploration) with respect to several common criteria of pseudoscience. In general, her analysis showed that parapsychology appears to meet the implicit criteria of science, to a greater or lesser extent, rather better than it meets the criteria of pseudoscience. In some cases, parapsychology actually fared better than mainstream science.

For example, with respect to an alleged emphasis on confirmation, Mousseau (2003) p.274, found that, in her sample, ‘almost half of the fringe articles report a negative outcome (disconfirmation). By contrast, no report of a negative result has been found in my sample of mainstream journals.’ With respect to an alleged absence of self-correction, ‘… 29 per cent of the fringe-journal articles […] discuss progress of research, problems encountered, epistemological issues. This kind of article is completely absent from the mainstream sample.’ (Mousseau 2003), p.275. Overall, the only reasonable conclusion is that parapsychology, at its best, is a true science.

Clear enough? --Annalisa Ventola _{(Talk | Contribs)} 18:47, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

it is clear that your one source is outweighed by Parapsychology#Scientific_reception sources 130 -224. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:46, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

One source? I've provided quite a few from several mainstream, neutral, and skeptical sources - including Wikipedia's Arbitration Committee's ruling on the subject.--Annalisa Ventola _{(Talk | Contribs)} 22:19, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Look at the details. Your source says that parapsychology shouldnt be judged as pseudoscience based on the sloppy work of its worst players. The nearly 100 sources just in our article alone identify the sloppiness of the marquee players- completely invalidating not only in number, but in premise, the claim of your source. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:14, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

• This text by French is similar to what you posted. He goes on to admit that it is "probably a minority view", and it surely is from the perspective of sources. By the way there are glaring problems which suggest the reason for this. Take for instance the criterion of parapsychology's lack of connection to other fields. Citing Mousseau, French counters this point by saying that "over a third of citations in fringe journals were of articles in mainstream science journals..." But this only shows a one-way connection. Mainstream science doesn't need parapsychology; mainstream papers don't cite parapsychology papers, generally. That's what is meant by lack of connection. A homeopathy paper citing mainstream papers on quantum mechanics (like this) does not demonstrate a "connection" between homeopathy and quantum mechanics in any practical sense.

The issue here is weight in the face of established science, and I had hoped my mention of Project Steve would have illuminated this a bit. Also please see WP:NPPOV. Manul ~ talk 01:28, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

I would be most grateful for a reference of your claim that "mainstream papers don't cite parapsychology papers". And your idea that there is a 'lack of connection' is on shaky ground given the PA's affiliation with the AAAS, and symposiums that those working in the field have been invited to present at the American Psychological Association, The British Psychological Society, and the American Psychological Society in recent years.

Additionally much like Chris French's analogy, the Wikipedia's ArbCom findings describe the study of the paranormal as a "three layer cake with frosting" stating, "In addition to mainstream science which generally ignores or does not consider the paranormal worthy of investigation, there is a scientific discipline of parapsychology which studies psychic phenomena in a serious scientific way, and popular culture concepts which have a following either in historical or contemporary popular culture, but are not taken seriously or investigated even by parapsychology. A fourth phenomenon is skeptical groups and individuals devoted to debunking.]] Notice how they define parapsychology as scientific discipline despite the perception that they are ignored by mainstream science. Also, the sloppy work you and Chris French refer to might be better described in your article Paranormal Investigation, but should not be conflated with parapsychology. Finally, there are sloppy biologists and sloppy physicists in this world, but the sloppiness of a single biologist or physicist doesn't make the entire fields of biology or physics pseudoscientific.

Finally, if we are concerned with a NPOV , then the negatively-connotated word "pseudoscience" really doesn't belong in the definition of parapsychology in the lead given the evidence presented to the contrary and the ArbCom's findings on this subject. Currently the definition is limited to a single point of view - the debunker's point of view - when words like "study" or "discipline" would be more neutral. --Annalisa Ventola _{(Talk | Contribs)} 03:57, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

FYI I have added you as a {{connected contributor}} above. Manul ~ talk 01:40, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

See how easy I made that for you. :-) Good faith also applies here - and on that note, I haven't edited this article this circa 2007, which also happens to predate when I became professionally employed in the field. Make of that what you will. --Annalisa Ventola _{(Talk | Contribs)} 03:57, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

• oppose "and then something happens for which we have no explanation nor any repeatable evidence" is not an "alternative theoretical formulation" - its magic. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:13, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Especially since in most cases we have a perfectly satisfactory explanation, but the true believers simply refuse to accept it. Guy (Help!) 10:18, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

• oppose I can't believe that a case can even be made to suggest that the investigation of telepathy, precognition, clairvoyance, psychokinesis, near-death experiences, reincarnation, apparitional experiences, and other paranormal claims, which after more than 100 years has found bugger all. I've seen previous bigwigs of the Parapsychological Association claim that the AAAS only does science, to which my answer is "why are you lot in it then?" -Roxy the non edible dog™ (resonate) 19:12, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
• what are we voting on? Did somebody start a straw poll? If so, what is the question or the action being deliberated? It's not clear to me what folks are getting in line to oppose. --Annalisa Ventola _{(Talk | Contribs)} 22:19, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
  • One would presume it is the proposition implied in the section title, in the initial posting comment " parapsychology may be considered 'alternative theoretical formulation'" and in your bolding of The Scientific Status of Parapsychology. ie that we act under the premise of: Parapsychology as "Alternative theoretical formulations" as opposed to the current: "Obvious pseudoscience" / "Generally considered pseudoscience". -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:55, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Hmmm, that is not how I worded the section title. Is it common for editors to now edit each other's work on talk pages too? And my quote heading from the Chris French textbook contribution was just that - a quote, not a call to action. --Annalisa Ventola _{(Talk | Contribs)} 03:57, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected

I semi-protected this article due to disruptive editing. Our new anonymous friend should propose edits and achieve consensus then use {{editprotected}}. This will help to avoid some of the common newcomers' errors they are making. Guy (Help!) 22:43, 24 June 2015 (UTC)