Talk:Parapsychology

The "Psionics" Concept

A new section has been added to the Talk-pages of telepathy that says, by and large, "Please, Take Note of "Psionics", "...there may be truth to a conceptual analysis on this word, psionics, in claiming that the existence of this concept must entail that telepathy is true!" Any good? 109.189.67.107 (talk) 17:40, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Removal of text from lead

IRWolfie, regarding your first delete..please quote the sentence on this WP help page, Wikipedia:Independent sources that implies that the Parapsychological Association is "not an independent source". Here is how the page defines one "An independent source is a source that has no vested interest in a written topic and therefore it is commonly expected to describe the topic from a disinterested perspective. An interest in a topic is vested where the source holds a financial or legal relationship with the topic..,"

Regarding you second delete...Brian David Josephson is a Nobel Prize laureate in physics, why do you regard his view that there has been "irrational attacks on parapsychology" an "attack" - Dave3457 (talk) 05:08, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Brian Josephson is well known for his fringe views about parapsychology and physics in general (read his page). The parapsychological association is a fringe group for proponents of parapsychology. Thus they both non-independent (see WP:FRINGE). You have positive commentary before the criticism, and an attack on the criticism afterwards, both sourced to proponents. Basically you are marginalising the mainstream point of view, contrary to WP:FRINGE, and hiding the criticism amid praise. That is, your are giving parapsychology undue legitimacy, a topic which is often regarded as containing much pseudoscience. As an aside, if I called you irrational, wouldn't you regard that as an attack? Sounds like an attack to me IRWolfie- (talk) 10:41, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree with IRWolfie. Your edits give undue weight to fringe positions. Neither Josephson not the Parapsychological Association are reliable sources, and their views cannot be equated with the mainstream view. Nor can they be used to challenge the mainstream view. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 10:48, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

IRWolfie you said: > "As an aside, if I called you irrational, wouldn't you regard that as an attack"

Josephson didn't call anyone irrational, he called the attacks irrational. So again, how is calling someone's attacks irrational, an attack? Also, it is not "an aside" it is the reason you said you deleted the entry.

I'll also ask you again, please quote the sentence on the Wikipedia:Independent sources WP help page, that implies that the Parapsychological Association is "not an independent source". That is the reason you said you deleted the entry and that is the page that defines what is and what is not an independent source.

The logic you guys seems to be using is this...While opponents of parapsychology get to express their views on parapsychology, proponents don't get to express their views because by virtue of being a proponent, their views are fringe. Isn't that just a little self serving?

I believe this messed up logic has its roots in the following non-logical, emotion way you feel about it......Opponents of parapsychology should get to express their views on parapsychology because they are right and proponents of parapsychology shouldn't get to express their views on parapsychology because they are wrong.

The fact that you are changing the "reason" for deleting the entries, supports this view.

-- Dave3457 (talk) 06:14, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Its not a reliable third party source I'm afraid, other than for the views of the association. If you don't accept that you can go to the reliable sources notive board and ask for other editors opinions. Otherwise I recommend you stop speculating on other editors emotional states and focus on logical and rational uses of sources ----Snowded ^TALK 06:41, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

All of your questions are fully answered in our policies, especially WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE. Take the time to read and understand them. Also, the burden is on you to convince your fellow editors that a source that you want to use is reliable, not on others to prove that it's not. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 06:46, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

The specific guideline that is most relevant for you to read is WP:FRINGE. It addresses neutrality and sourcing requirements, including what are independent sources with respect to fringe science/pseudoscience/paranormal articles. Basically this is how wikipedia works: Proponents of parapsychology should not be allowed to have the last word on criticism because they are the vast minority; they are a fringe group. It is undue to give them more weight than they are given in the most reliable sources. Fringe groups always have some claimed rebuttal, but if it's not been noted and discussed by a mainstream source with respect to the specific criticism, it's beneath our notice because otherwise we violate neutrality by giving them undue weight. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:15, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

IRWolfie- - just an FYI that you are misrepresenting the Parapsychological Association. It is not a group of proponents for psi, but an association of professionals with common research interests. We've had the likes of Richard Wiseman and Christopher French in our membership rolls, as well as a number of other academics who believe that paranormal phenomena will ultimately be explain within current theories of mainstream psychology. Annalisa Ventola _{(Talk | Contribs)} 23:49, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Had? IRWolfie- (talk) 09:23, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Had and have. Membership fluctuates year by year. Annalisa Ventola _{(Talk | Contribs)} 13:29, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

The Criticism and Controversy section

I am well aware of how controversial Parapsychology is as a field but isn't the controversy a little big at taking up a third of the article?-98.247.76.149 (talk) 14:14, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Doesn't seem too much to me. How much should there be? What content should go? MartinPoulter (talk) 16:11, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

The lead really should reflect it FAR more then just one sentence begging as "critics state." Critics here being the entire scientific and medical communities. This stuff is as wacko fringe as it gets. As it is this article needs SERIOUS work in it's various sections to bring it in-line with WP:FRINGE and WP:NPOV. Far to many statements and sections make it sound like these things actually exist or happen, when it's all fraud and made up stuff. — raekyt 18:33, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Yep, the fringe theorists had their way with it for a long time, IRWolfie- (talk) 01:20, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Erm... this is hardly "all fraud and made-up stuff". A lot of psi researchers are extremely critical with their work and keep a close eye out for fraud. They have their faults, like every scientist (skeptic or not), but to discredit them like this is somewhat insulting to the work they do. They're not like Sylvia Browne in just trying to get their books sold. PhiChiPsiOmega (talk) 23:48, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Again I am perplexed by this idea of an unskeptical scientist as a thing that might exist. Good science is built around skepticism. There's this concept called the null hypothesis which is key to the development of research methodology. It's a fundamental concept and it is institutional skepticism. Without skepticism you don't have science. Simonm223 (talk) 02:16, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Let me clarify: There's scientific skepticism, which even parapsychologists exhibit if you read the lit, and then there are the uber-skeptics, who pretend to be scientific but aren't. I'm not against scientific skepticism. PhiChiPsiOmega (talk) 13:55, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

survivalism

I see that survivalism is redirected from "Survivalism (life after death), a belief in the survival of the conscious self after death" to this article. I probably missed a discussion of this, so can someone tell me what happened to "survivalism," "survival" and "Survival Hypothesis."

Reincarnation is just an aspect of the survival question but is the link for "survival of consciousness after bodily death." The more general concept is Survival Hypothesis, which also leads to parapsychology--(circular?).

In parapsychology, an important question is whether or not the Super-Psi Hypothesis or the Survival Hypothesis explains reported experiences. I do not see anything of that in this article. However, I am going to guess that the subject has been hotly debated here and the compromise was to dumb down the article to avoid dealing with it. Tom Butler (talk) 22:11, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Major Revisions Are Needed Here...

Hi, my account is new, but I have some criticisms about the parapsychology article. Could those who have had experience with this page direct me to places where these topics have been discussed? I have some additional articles as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PhiChiPsiOmega (talk • contribs) 17:01, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

If you want to create new articles I suggest you review everything you can related to WP:AfC Also before trying to overhaul parapsychology I suggest you consult the policies under WP:FRINGE, WP:DUE and WP:NPOV as those are the three areas where this article most frequently attracts spirited discussion. Simonm223 (talk) 17:12, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I would just suggest reading WP:RS. Any new content requires we have reliable sources. I posted a bunch of links to your talk page. If you have any questions, feel free to ask there, here, or on my talk page. All the best,   — Jess· Δ♥ 20:28, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, in the meantime, I hope I can voice my main problems with the article right here. PhiChiPsiOmega (talk) 22:01, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

First, I'd like to say that almost all of the criticisms of parapsychology have been addressed in the literature. If you want a balanced article, I'd suggest we start the revisions there. You could, for example, cite replies to skeptical attacks on JB Rhine, which he himself addressed. One factor in parapsychology is that, when an effect isn't replicated, but initial success is most likely not due to fraud, other explanations involving appropriate conditions for psi can be hypothesized and (most importantly!) tested. I have some examples from Rupert Sheldrake's "Telephone Telepathy" hypothesis, as well as the PEAR Lab RNG experiments. PhiChiPsiOmega (talk) 22:01, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not aim for balance. That would be false balance. We aim for due weight, Second Quantization (talk) 10:41, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

On the Ganzfeld section, there's some material from Robert Todd Carroll's website. He's a philosopher, not a statistician or psychologist. I would cite others here. Hyman DID reply to Storm et al., but they issued a reply back to him [yes, this is from Dean Radin's website, but the article itself is from Psychological Bulletin]: http://deanradin.com/evidence/Storm2010Nothingtohide.pdf. A more substantive critique of Storm et al.'s paper was published last year, by Rouder et al., which you might want to include, but Storm's team responded to that as well [both papers are included in this file]: http://deanradin.com/evidence/Storm2013reply.pdf. PhiChiPsiOmega (talk) 22:01, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

You quote Hyman as if he had the last word on the topic, but Honorton replied to him several times (you fail to even quote his replies), and a joint communique was issued by the two, in which Honorton didn't agree that psi hadn't been demonstrated, but that more work needed to be done (see the abstract: http://psycnet.apa.org/psycinfo/1988-12537-001). Sure enough, in 1994, a posthumous paper was issued in Psychological Bulletin by Honorton and (the now-estranged) Daryl Bem, in which they defended the Ganzfeld. Milton and Wiseman's meta-analysis from 1999 has flaws of its own, among them the fact that when analyzed more appropriately (i.e. when the effect size is weighted), it has a smaller, but more statistically significant effect size: http://www.ics.uci.edu/~jutts/MWAnalysis.pdf. This was noted in the 2010 Storm et al. paper (pg. 473, footnote 1). PhiChiPsiOmega (talk) 22:01, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I could go on, but these errors are just some of the examples I found. This debate is a little more wider than the present article seems to let on, and I think changing it would be for the best. PhiChiPsiOmega (talk) 22:01, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

There's a guy on here named Ersby (Andrew Endersby), and I'd like to engage him sometime in a dialogue, since he's the most well-read on the Ganzfeld thing. PhiChiPsiOmega (talk) 22:01, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry for dumping all of that here, but I REALLY think revisions need to be made! PhiChiPsiOmega (talk) 22:05, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

There is a main article on the ganzfeld experiment, the small section on the ganzfeld on this article is just a brief overview. Basically you are citing the same old pseudoscience like Sheldrake, Radin and Bem from the 90s. The errors and flaws in their experiments have been addressed on their own articles. Like the others, J. B. Rhine's results were never replicated by the scientific community. Sorry but you have no case at all. Everything you have cited has been shot down in the scientific literature and is old news. See:

• Daryl Bem
• Charles Honorton
• Dean Radin
• Rupert Sheldrake

I suggest you check out the publications of Hines, Hansel, Marks, Neher, Blackmore, Stenger, Wiseman etc which can be found on the ganzfeld article amongst others and also familiarize yourself with Wikipedia policies on fringe and pseudoscience. Goblin Face (talk) 22:29, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

If you read WP:WEIGHT, you'll see that we are biased toward the reliable sources, particularly those in the scientific community. So the question is, how significant are these ideas in scientific literature? The answers eems to be that the scientific community wholly rejects parapsychology, considering it a pseudoscience. There is positive writing about it outside of the scientific community, but belief is largely relegated to a fringe group. So, we present their ideas in this article, but we do so alongside the scientific opinion, with consideration of the prominence of their views in the relevant sources. To change our coverage, we would need sources showing the scientific community significantly accepted parapsychology. There are other places on the internet with different rules, like ParaWiki, but that's how wikipedia operates. Does that make sense?   — Jess· Δ♥ 22:51, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Goblin Face: I've seen those pages, and I just gave you evidence as to why this is not old news. This is new literature (post-2010!) I'm bringing up, and I even gave a rebuttal to most of the attacks in my original post above. I'd rather my posts not be ignored or hand-waved away like this. With regards to Hansel et al., I have read some of those people. They are not convincing. 9 times out of 10 I can debunk them by actually looking at what's being said by the people they're replying to. For the other tenth, it's usually something along the lines of: "They made mistakes X, Y, and Z in the past." When I check THOSE out, the mistakes have been corrected, and more methodologically sound, replicable studies still turn up. PhiChiPsiOmega (talk) 23:31, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Jess: I'm going to suppose that the reference to ParaWiki is not a thinly-veiled insult and point out that the evidence for psi is not only compelling, but is the sign of huge scientific debate (within the community, not outside of it, mind you, or else this wouldn't be debated within journals like Foundations of Physics, Psychological Bulletin, and Frontiers in Psychology). It doesn't need to be widely-accepted nor dismissed as pseudoscience. It could just be controversial data, as I originally revised it to. PhiChiPsiOmega (talk) 23:31, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Also, you're citing skeptics only, not the full spectrum of thought on this topic (e.g. Charles Akers's 1987 "Parapsychology is science, but its findings are inconclusive" article). An analogy is if I cited fundamentalist theists when it came to a criticism of atheism and not posting the atheist rebuttal to potential misrepresentation (yes, this is science, but my point still holds). Some people are independent researchers, who publish their work everywhere from Psychological Bulletin to Journal of Scientific Exploration. This isn't just confined to some articles in fringe journals as you seem to claim. I understand that you want to be neutral, but I'm giving you suggestions as to how you should approach this from a neutral perspective. This isn't astrology or ancient astronaut pseudoscience that fails on the first take at scrutiny. This issue is a much larger gray area. If you're going to publish critiques, get it from more informed sources, like Bosch et al. or even the Rouder et al. paper (which I sent you to!). PhiChiPsiOmega (talk) 23:31, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

PhiChi most of what you are citing is not new literature, and most of it is not scientific. Apart from the Storm 2010 paper you have nothing recent. There are very few articles about parapsychology in the Psychological Bulletin. There is no current ganzfeld debate in the scientific community. It is old news. The experiments were never replicated, plus they contained sensory leakage problems (See Blackmore, Hines, Hyman, Wiseman etc). You mention the Journal of Scientific Exploration but this is a pseudoscience fringe journal that have also published papers claiming Bigfoot and the Lochness monster are real. Also your claim there is a "huge scientific debate" about parapsychology is not backed up by any scientific references. Goblin Face (talk) 00:14, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Huh? Why would it be an insult? The evidence for psychic phenomena is simply not "compelling", nor is it the subject of "huge scientific debate". If it were, we'd need secondary sources indicating that, and right now we don't have any beyond the writings of a very small fringe group. You should read WP:FRINGE, really.   — Jess· Δ♥ 00:43, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Jess and GF: The evidence is very compelling, as I've presented so far (and only in part, since I could cite more). There is a controversy. All you have to do is look at a book like James Alcock's PSI WARS to realize that calling parapsychology a controversy is taken for granted. The sensory leakage problem has been corrected since the Honorton and Hyman Communique, and has been amply addressed elsewhere. And if you read anything past the 1990s (besides Terence Hines, of course), you'll realize the effect has been replicated several times. That's why I cited those papers by Storm et al. The writings, once again, are not "those of a small fringe group". There are several writers on both sides. Please understand this. When I mentioned JSE (in passing, not in citation, mind you), I only used it to show that these researchers not only publish for journals like that, but also for more renowned journals like Psychological Bulletin. PhiChiPsiOmega (talk) 01:03, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Jess: Referring me to "ParaWiki" when I'm trying to show that it doesn't belong to just there is a huge insult to my intelligence and to the people who study this stuff seriously. Have you read any of the lit? Do you know how self-critical these researchers are? PhiChiPsiOmega (talk) 01:03, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Jess: I'm reading WP:FRINGE, and it supports my point. This should be called "questionable science", not the blatant, unambiguous "pseudoscience". I'd rather you not refer me to these articles. If you think I don't know what I'm talking about, come out and be straight with it. PhiChiPsiOmega (talk) 01:07, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

No, there's no controversy from the overall consensus in the scientific community about parapsychology, the controversy is only in the parapsychological community. Parapsychology is a pseudoscience. There is no controversy from the scientific community about this. You claim to be interested in recent references then you should read the book by Massimo Pigliucci, Maarten Boudry. (2013). Philosophy of Pseudoscience: Reconsidering the Demarcation Problem. University Of Chicago Press. It has a chapter about parapsychology and pseudoscience. Also see Nonsense on Stilts: How to Tell Science from Bunk by Pigliucci in 2011. Regarding Terence Hines, he updated the second edition of his book in 2003, it is not an old book. Nothing has changed since that date in parapsychology. There's also Paranormal and Transcendental Experience: A Psychological Examination revised 2011 by Andrew Neher. There is also Voodoo Science: The Road from Foolishness to Fraud by Robert L. Park. Another is the book by the psychologist Thomas Gilovich How we know what isn't so: The fallibility of human reason in everyday life. Most of these references are in the article plus over a hundred others, including scientific papers. There is absolutely no scientific evidence for any psi phenomena and there are hundreds of scientific references that document this. You are very quick to question other users on here about having not read the literature but it's clear you have not read the references on the article and all you are doing is citing fringe science journals or parapsychological articles in pseudoscience journals. There are already 170 references on the article. Goblin Face (talk) 01:26, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Ok then. You don't understand wikipedia policy. You're new here, so there's nothing wrong with that, but it's your job to read up and try to acclimate. I'm a fairly experienced editor; I've been here a long time, and I have a good understanding of our content policies. Considering you just joined today, it doesn't help you to explain to me how our policies are applied; I'm telling you, your change is directly contrary to WP:FRINGE. I've been very nice to you, so suggesting that I've insulted you is more than a bit offensive. I'm sorry that you're insulted, but wikipedia will not represent that there is compelling evidence for psychic phenomena or that parapsychology is a science until we have substantial reliable secondary sources which indicate it is seen that way by at least a minority of experts in the relevant field. That is to say, until it has made an impact on the scientific consensus, which as of today, it has not. Think I'm wrong? Give me a reliable secondary source which says so.   — Jess· Δ♥ 01:38, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Look, I appreciate your help, Mann jess, but I think we're talking past each other. The point I'm trying to make is that psi researchers have accumulated replicable, testable evidence that needs to be taken seriously, and that if one has access to the material rather than having it be filtered, one will see that this is the case. What is important here are arguments. Even if we don't agree that parapsychology has compelling evidence, at least show the responses parapsychologists have made to the criticisms instead of acting as though they haven't. PhiChiPsiOmega (talk) 01:56, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Please consider that one of the guiding principles we work within is WP:DUE. For this reason, no, we'd not be acting appropriately to list every rebuttal in every fringe publication. If there are, as you said, replicable results demonstrate them being replicated with documentation in reliable sources and I'll be all too happy to defend the inclusion of that material. But if another reliable source points out flaws in experimental design, errors in statistical analysis or outright fraud that's going to go in too. Simonm223 (talk) 02:13, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Goblin Face: I know that you've read a lot of the skeptical literature. I've read less than you, but I've read enough. Please stop shoving these articles and books in my face, or I will consider you a troll not worth discussing things with. If it's like the other (irrelevant) material you've sent me, I doubt there's anything new there. It's funny that you bring up Pigliucci, considering that one of his students is a physicist who has debated him on psi's legitimacy for a while: http://rationallyspeaking.blogspot.com/2011/12/alternative-take-on-esp.html. PhiChiPsiOmega (talk) 01:56, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Good science is by its very nature a skeptical endeavor. If you're separating skeptics from your researchers you've already made a serious mistake. True believers make poor investigators. Also please remember to assume goodwill. It's not a matter of "shoving literature in your face" rather it's that we've all been down this path many times before and so when we point out "yes, and this is what people in the scientific community think of Sheldrake" for the hundredth time we don't necessarily feel a need to give him (Sheldrake) the benefit of the doubt yet again barring new evidence. Simonm223 (talk) 02:08, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

No, what's important isn't the arguments. What's important is the sources. Wikipedia's threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth. That's why I pointed you to ParaWiki. Other wikis may not have the same policies we do - they may even have some novel ones of their own - but if you want to edit here, on wikipedia, you need to abide by wikipedia's content policies, which means sources, sources, sources. If you have a reliable secondary source that says the scientific community takes this "replicable, testable evidence" seriously, then we can discuss changing the article. Until then, we can't. Even if it's true.   — Jess· Δ♥ 02:14, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

And please don't call other editors trolls. "Assume good faith" is a foundational pillar of wikipedia.   — Jess· Δ♥ 02:16, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry about calling him a troll, but I've read most of the arguments and I'm familiar with them. Could you at least provide links to the replies parapsychologists have made in more credible journals? PhiChiPsiOmega (talk) 02:22, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

There are no credible journals with replies from parapsychologists. That stopped in the 1980s after the errors of Russell Targ in the nature journal, and the same thing happened with Dean Radin. Mainstream science journals rarely let parapsychologists publish. If you want replies from parapsychologists in a reliable reference, then you would have to cite something like the book Debating Psychic Experience: Human Potential Or Human Illusion? which is notable or the book you previously mentioned PSI Wars. They feature articles from both parapsychologists and scientists. Goblin Face (talk) 02:40, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

What would be more relevant would be if somebody who was not a parapsychologist defended or demonstrated replication of results in a credible journal. Again, WP:DUE comes up and if nothing changed as a result of an argument between a researcher and his detractors it is hardly notable. Simonm223 (talk) 02:25, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)This article should be representing the ideas of parapsychology, so if you have a source that talks about one, then we can certainly consider how it should be included. It just needs to be placed in context, based on the significance of the viewpoint in our sources (that's what WP:DUE is all about, which I pointed to earlier). What source do you feel is missing from the article?   — Jess· Δ♥ 02:28, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

I posted material above that I thought we could add to the Ganzfeld section, all of it quite reliable (peer-reviewed, not the usual skeptics vs believers debate, etc.). As for non-parapsychologists who find the evidence convincing, there's Jessica Utts (a statistician), as well as Lance Storm and Patrizio Tressoldi (psychologists), all of whom I cited above. For one person I didn't cite, there's physicist Stanley Jeffers et al., who were initially unable to replicate the PK effect on RNGs (and were cited by Robert Todd Carroll for that reason), but later found in a controlled study that certain individuals with brain lesions contributed a greater effect. Thus, he replicated the PK effect and found which things may contribute to a greater PK than others. It was in the JSE, but I'll include it here for posterity, even if you don't wind up using it: http://www.scientificexploration.org/journal/jse_17_4_freedman.pdf. PhiChiPsiOmega (talk) 02:48, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

GF: They do publish in peer-reviewed journals. Targ's work hasn't "tarnished" anything. They still publish in Psychological Bulletin, as I've said thousands of times. PhiChiPsiOmega (talk) 02:51, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Where did it happen with Radin, exactly? Are you talking about the IJ Good note? Because that was based on a misunderstanding of Radin, as has been known for quite a while from the following exchange: http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~bdj10/psi/doubtsregood.html. PhiChiPsiOmega (talk) 02:54, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm reading the Freedman paper you linked and it is a severely flawed experiment. First off, the statistically significant findings were only in a single test subject with left frontal brain lesions that affected spacial perception and reduced self-awareness. Combine that with the fact that there was a researcher in the room with him during all tests and there's a substantial risk of information leaking. All people with normal brain function (and in fact all other people with brain lesions) showed no significance; this smacks of cherry-picking data.

Freedman et. al even concede "However, it remains unclear why positive results should be found only following damage to the left frontal region and not after bilateral or right frontal lesions."

Furthermore they continue "our results did not replicate the findings reported by Jahn and his colleagues in normal subjects"

So, yeah, that's a pretty flawed experiment, one that doesn't replicate Jahn's findings except in a single person with a particularly unusual form of brain damage, and which falls into the classic parapsychological trap of calling anything anomalous, no matter how slightly so, proof of PSI (though they were unwilling to even go that far and simply signed of with "warrants further research")

Finally, notwithstanding the issues with the findings, regardless of the risk of information leakage, there is the risk that with a sample so minuscule as a sample size of ONE randomness is just, well, random. Yes, the analysis of that one person showed substantial deviation from anticipated results but that's effectively meaningless because it was just one person. Flip one coin often enough and there's the chance it might deviate from statistical norms because randomness is] random. Simonm223 (talk) 03:16, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Continuing regarding the Freedman et. al paper, it was cited a total of eight times. [1] One of those was by Freedman in later work. A rebuttal from PEAR actually contends that only the responses from normal patients matter within the context of PEAR experiments and proceed to disregard the only anomalous data in the experiment entirely. All other citations that referenced the Freedman experiment were from parapsychologists; suggesting that this document had no significant impact on scientific consensus and reflects a WP:FRINGE document. Simonm223 (talk) 03:31, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

To go point-by-point:

I know the effect was found in a few subjects. That was my point. Also, I wouldn't suspect information leakage unless there was reason to, which there isn't. Also, it's not cherry-picking if all the results were included. PhiChiPsiOmega (talk) 03:43, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, but it's still found following damage to the left frontal region. That's all it established, and that's what I said in my intro to it. PhiChiPsiOmega (talk) 03:43, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Quote-mine. What they actually said was: "Although our results did not replicate the findings reported by Jahn and his colleagues in normal subjects (Jahn et al., 1987a, 1997), they support their claims that intentionality can alter the output of a random event generator."

Wow. Now THAT is some major hand-waving. It's not data-dredging. It comes from testing whether or not brain damage can have an effect on PK, which is what the experiment was designed to show in the first place! PhiChiPsiOmega (talk) 03:43, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Again, hand-waving. It's not random because it was controlled for in the studies. If it were random, it wouldn't exhibit the statistically significant difference from chance that it does. PhiChiPsiOmega (talk) 03:43, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

You do realize this was only a minor point I made, right? I even SAID it was fringe, and that you didn't need to include it. I see the rebuttal, and I notice you didn't criticize the article I have you for having a different methodology than the PEAR studies. However, ignoring this, how does citing his argument debunk my main point that there is a huge amount of evidence with which to investigate psi? Dobyns even says towards the end: "Indeed, from a hypothesis-testing viewpoint it is a successful replication: Bayesian evaluation of the Freedman et al. data produces a factor of 2.01 in favor of the PEAR alternative over the null hypothesis. That is to say, the Freedman et al. result, despite its lack of significance [ed: small number of studies], approximately doubles the posterior probability that the PEAR result is a real effect." He even takes it as a promissory note! PhiChiPsiOmega (talk) 03:43, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry for being rude, but I just don't think you understood my main point or that of the experiment. Also, Freedman wrote a response to Dobyns's claims in the anthology MYSTERIOUS MINDS. I can't check it out right now, but I'll find some way to do it when I find the time. PhiChiPsiOmega (talk) 03:48, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

PhiChi I understand you may have strong beliefs about this subject, but what you are citing is not going to be able to improve the article because they are unreliable references (you even admitted the above paper was fringe). In Philosophy of Pseudoscience: Reconsidering the Demarcation Problem we read on page 161 "Parapsychological research almost never appears in mainstream science journals", this is exactly the case. Apart from two or three papers in the Psychological Bulletin on the ganzfeld you have absolutely no scientific references to cite. You have no scientific references for your bold claim of parapsychology not being a pseudoscience etc. Your claim of "Major Revisions" to the article is not going to happen unless you can present scientific references, you have been asked several times but you have not given any. Goblin Face (talk) 05:59, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

This is why I'm talking about the need for skepticism in science. I read their experimental controls. They were insufficient. As for their statistical analysis - it depended quite heavily on pseudosubjects which is never going to compensate for the lack of an appropriate sample size; which this was not by any test. A sample size of one person is effectively useless for establishing anything. Furthermore it didn't establish any evidence of PSI. All the tests did was establish a single anomalous data point. And I'm sorry but occam's razor has to come into play here - when there is a single anomalous data point in a study involving a single subject it is more likely that they made a mistake with their experimental protocols involving that subject than that the subject happened to have magical powers. And that's why no mainstream scientists cite this study - because it wasn't particularly well done and because it proved absolutely nothing about anything. Simonm223 (talk) 12:03, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

As for not rebutting the PEAR article I didn't read it anywhere near long enough to make a proper comment on it - PEAR is highly pseudoscientific and I don't have time for that today. Remember my mentioning errors in statistical analysis yeah, that's PEAR all over. Also their hypothesis depends on effect preceding cause which is not something that happens ever anywhere. Simonm223 (talk) 12:06, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

GF: OK. Your expectation of an arbitrarily huge amount of scientific references is just ridiculous. I can't provide that. I can only give the responses parapsychologists have made to these critiques, which are published in peer-review. If you can cite non-peer-reviewed skeptical publications like skepdic, you can cite these as well. Why isn't this good enough for you? I've even given you better critiques of parapsychologists, like Bosch, Steinkamp, and Boller's 2006 paper on the RNGs (also in PB: http://deanradin.com/evidence/Bosch2006RNGMetaFull.pdf). You even ignored that, and it's basically ammunition for you. Again, I'm aware of those books. I'm reading PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE AND THE OCCULT and I am aware of the demarcation problem and the relevant issues. The parapsychologists make a stronger case. Why don't you cite their replies instead of disingenuously claiming that the skeptics have the last word? "Aside from two or three"? NO! More like 10-15! And that's just the tip of the iceberg of other stuff published in physics journals and the new FRONTIERS OF PSYCHOLOGY. I don't "have strong beliefs on this subject". I'm just fed up with pseudoskeptical arguments like this. I just cited ONE PAPER that was fringe, and that was in passing. I said it "was fringe" (stop making it look like you twisted my arm until I said it) and even said you didn't have to include it! It wasn't even part of my main point! Why are you so intent on distorting what I'm saying? "You have not given any"? Make up your mind? Have I given too few or none at all?! And ONCE AGAIN, I just mentioned the JSE paper IN PASSING. 69.14.156.143 (talk) 13:38, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Simon: I really don't understand why you're honing in on something I just mentioned in passing, but OK. This is internet skepticism (excuse me, "scientific skepticism") at its finest, I guess. Once again, the controls aren't insufficient at all. There's very little likelihood of sensory leakage (which is kind of an ad-hom towards the people carrying out the experiment), and there's a group which includes no intention whatsoever as applied to the RNG. Since the purpose is to demonstrate intention vs. no intention, that's a great control. It is not likely at all that they made a mistake with their priors. You basically just repeated yourself in spite of the rebuttal I gave to your claims. They didn't just demonstrate a "single anomalous data point", they established a statistically significant one that deserves the attention it got, given the other groups. I am sorry to say this, but you are hand-waving so much here. 69.14.156.143 (talk) 13:38, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

No. Don't just say "PEAR made mistakes". Tell me how PEAR made mistakes. If it's like the reasons above, on a subject I just mentioned in passing, I don't know what to tell you. And you're going about this backwards: The entire point of the experiments is see whether there is sufficient data that an effect can precede a cause. It's called retrocausation, and I'm not even sure that the RNG tests even test that. The precognition material does, though. 69.14.156.143 (talk) 13:38, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

And in case you make a charge about affirming the consequent, here's modus tollens:

1. If there is no psi, this effect should not exist.

2. This effect exists.

Therefore there is psi.

The first premise is extremely well-justified, and accounted for with the controls of the experiment. 69.14.156.143 (talk) 13:38, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Could we please get off this tangent and get back to the Ganzfeld? PhiChiPsiOmega (talk) 13:53, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

This isn't a forum to discuss the existence (or not) of woo. It is to discuss this article. Please try to keep discussions on-topic. If you haven't yet read WP:MAINSTREAM, WP:NPOV, WP:ARB/PS please do so now. Barney the barney barney (talk) 13:57, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't the one who went off-topic... PhiChiPsiOmega (talk) 14:20, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm honing in on the example you provided of a non-parapsychologist "replicating" the results of a parapsychologist's experiment. Except that they failed to do so. And the experiment was flawed anyway. And their work is only cited by parapsychologists. Because it effectively proved nothing. And they said as much. You know, since I asked you to provide examples of non-parapsychologists successfully replicating the results of a parapsychological experiment. Want to try again? And I'm going to say this only once more - please keep discourse civil. I have not attacked you as a person once in the course of this concentration, focusing entirely upon a source you provided - as is proper for Wikipedia. To come back with statements like "This is internet skepticism (excuse me, "scientific skepticism") at its finest, I guess," is directly attacking me, as a person. And, no, it's not ad-homonym to suggest that there is the risk of sensory leakage in an experimental design where the experimenter is in the room with the subject. Simonm223 (talk) 14:32, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm a little lost on what's being suggested. Phi, could you summarize this for me in one sentence? All I need is I want to use this source to include "this content".   — Jess· Δ♥ 14:37, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

1. If there is no psi, this effect should not exist.

2. This effect exists.

Therefore there is psi.

For the record - that right there is why nobody in the scientific community takes parapsychology seriously. Simonm223 (talk) 14:38, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Simon: You keep citing your criticisms as if I never replied to them. If you don't think my replies are adequate, tell me why. There is no chance for sensory leakage. The protocol doesn't allow for it, since all the experimenter does is ask them to do something and record the result. This keeps the experimenter's activities at a minimum. How, exactly, does sensory leakage take place with a random number generator? That argument normally applies to Ganzfeld and Forced-Choice studies, but not really this. Also, that "assessment" of modus tollens is exactly why I used a personal attack (which I don't normally use with critics, BTW). This is what falsification has formally been ever since Popper. It's a formalization of the arguments scientists use, and it's pretty basic knowledge in PhilSci. PhiChiPsiOmega (talk) 15:15, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Jess: There are a few articles I'd like to add on, and I'll link them here. In my first post, I gave links to articles on the new Ganzfeld tests, including a reply to Hyman and a further criticism of Storm et al. (along with their reply). These links are from Radin's website (which also has some replies to Bem that you can include), but the articles are from reliable journals:

Storm et al.'s reply to Hyman: http://deanradin.com/evidence/Storm2010Nothingtohide.pdf

Rouder et al.'s criticism and Storm et al.'s reply: http://deanradin.com/evidence/Storm2013reply.pdf

Additional articles by Tressoldi that can be included: http://deanradin.com/evidence/Tressoldi2011mentalconn.pdf, http://deanradin.com/evidence/Tressoldi2011Bayesian.pdf

Skeptical RNG meta-analysis by Bosch et al. with commentary: http://deanradin.com/evidence/Bosch2006RNGMetaFull.pdf PhiChiPsiOmega (talk) 15:15, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

I hope that helps, and I'm sorry for being harsh. PhiChiPsiOmega (talk) 15:15, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

The problem with the modus tollens is in the first part. 1. If there is no psi, this effect should not exist. Parapsychologists have never successfully established this. Ever. And that's the core of the problem. It always has been. Simonm223 (talk) 15:18, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

@Phi, thanks, but you missed the second part. Those are sources, but what content do you want added based on them? Such as: In the Ganzfield section, I want to add "this wording" based on this source. With all the talk above, I don't know what actual content is being proposed.  — Jess· Δ♥ 15:27, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Simon: Er... no. That's valid. There shouldn't be any influence whatsoever on the RNGs, and the Ganzfeld tests should come up to chance levels if there is no psi. That's what all of our current knowledge about the natural world, including that of the RNGs, should lead to, given a high number of trials. That's why randomized trials were used in the first place. The experiments are designed so that the only effect can be something non-local. PhiChiPsiOmega (talk) 15:44, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Jess: Oh, sorry. I'd like to add to the Ganzfeld section, after "Hyman has published a rebuttal [should we change that wording to "critique"?] to Storm et al.", the following: "Rouder et al. also made a reply to their claims.[link] Storm et al. have responded to both[links], and Tressoldi has continued pursuing this research in other journals.[links]" That seems neutral, but I'd appreciate feedback. PhiChiPsiOmega (talk) 15:44, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

PhiChi no, that's not the case. As is well pointed out here [2] and here [3] there are all kinds of issues with PEAR and RNG experiments in general, and one of the biggest is the assumption that any anomalous data, no matter how slight, constitutes PSI. Simonm223 (talk) 15:56, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Second, with regard to your edit suggestion. Why does it matter that Storm et al. responded to their critiques? Did they change anybody's mind? Did they spawn new experimentation that later pointed to replicability? Anybody can write a letter.Simonm223 (talk) 15:58, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Simon: Once again, that's not the case. The experiments are DESIGNED so that the anomaly can only be caused by mental intention. This is the thing Robert Todd Carroll keeps missing. That's why they have the control groups to separate the lack of intentional effects from the intentional effects. It's not looking at blips on a screen and saying, "Magic!" Again, please stop strawmanning. PhiChiPsiOmega (talk) 17:02, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

The reason I brought the responses up is not to "prove psi". It's to show that the proponents are actively responding to their critics in a scientific matter. "Anybody can write a letter" is yet another handwave, since the point I'm trying to make is that the responses of psi proponents are direct, enough to GET PEER REVIEW. They haven't spawned new experimentation yet, but they do allow for more conversation over the Ganzfeld trials, which could very well include plans for another experiment. PhiChiPsiOmega (talk) 17:02, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

PhiChi/69.14.156.143 the "Skeptical RNG meta-analysis by Bosch et al" which you mention is already described on the article, it does not need to be mentioned in anymore detail. And like I said above there is already an entire article on the ganzfeld experiment. The overall consensus from the scientific community is that the ganzfeld experiment was not evidence for psi (they contained sensory leakage problems, and have never been replicated) (see Blackmore, Hansel, Marks, Gardner, Milton, Wiseman, Alcock, Hyman, Neher, Colman, Stenger, Frazier etc.) Most psychology textbooks do not even mention the ganzfeld, there is no controversy. The section on this page on the ganzfeld is just an overview. You have admitted you have no scientific references. You are just wasting time here citing the same old Storm paper. Sorry but your "Major Revisions" to the article is not going to happen because you have no reliable references. What you are doing is spamming this page with unreliable material, this talk page is not a forum for your rants. You need to present reliable scientific references or you have no case at all. You are honestly wasting your time here because you even admitted you have none of these scientific references, they don't exist. Nothing you have listed will improve the article. Goblin Face (talk) 17:04, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Also I know you mean well but you shouldn't keep linking to the Dean Radin website, it is an unreliable source. Radin has misrepresented many papers on his website (even got names wrong etc). If you want to find these papers then try and find them on reliable websites. Goblin Face (talk) 17:20, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

OK. I didn't know the Bosch et al. thing was referred to. Have the replies been referred to, though? I haven't checked, but thank you. The Ganzfeld stuff HAS been replicated by parapsychologists and analyzed by proponents and skeptics alike.

But aside from that, you're just making the same criticisms over and over again, despite my replies. It's extremely annoying. The sensory leakage problem has been corrected, so the long list of names you provide probably includes people making outdated criticisms. I don't expect textbooks to mention controversial data anyway, so that's a bit of a moot point. Anyway, I have given you reliable references in the proponents' replies to criticisms. Not doing that implies that proponents have no reply whatsoever, which is absolutely dishonest. I've given you ten or twelve articles from Psychological Bulletin and mainstream scientific journals. So what if I linked to Radin's site? It's just a resource to download the articles from! You can find them yourself on Google Scholar if you think he's somehow modifying the text or whatever. PhiChiPsiOmega (talk) 17:34, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

"You have admitted you have no scientific references." Wow. You are keen on misrepresenting me, aren't you? I never said anything like this. I SAID, if you recall, that the huge number of papers you seem to be asking for on this controversial topic (despite the large amount I've already given to you) is absolutely ridiculous. I have scientific references. You're just looking at them and saying "Not enough" which is a ridiculous, arbitrary criticism. I'm sorry. PhiChiPsiOmega (talk) 17:34, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

I mean, seriously. How many articles do you want? A hundred? I gave you peer-reviewed, scientific papers to your long-outdated criticisms and you seem to be keen on hand-waving those away, and then going from "You've given me very few" (even though I clearly have given you plenty!) to "You've given me none." PhiChiPsiOmega (talk) 17:37, 28 February 2014 (UTC)