Talk:Parapsychology: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 16:02, 8 March 2014

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Parapsychology article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

Parapsychology is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.

This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on August 11, 2008.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
July 19, 2007	Good article nominee	Listed
July 31, 2007	Peer review	Reviewed
July 31, 2007	Featured article candidate	Not promoted
September 11, 2007	Featured article candidate	Promoted
September 22, 2009	Featured article review	Demoted
Current status: Former featured article

Parapsychology C‑class (inactive)

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Parapsychology, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.ParapsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject ParapsychologyTemplate:WikiProject ParapsychologyParapsychology articles
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Paranormal C‑class High‑importance

	This article falls under the scope of WikiProject Paranormal, which aims to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the paranormal and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the attached article, help with current tasks, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and discussions.ParanormalWikipedia:WikiProject ParanormalTemplate:WikiProject Paranormalparanormal articles
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Psychology C‑class High‑importance

	Psychology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology articles
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Occult C‑class High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Occult, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to the occult on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OccultWikipedia:WikiProject OccultTemplate:WikiProject OccultOccult articles
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Skepticism C‑class Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism articles
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article has been marked as needing immediate attention.

Alternative Views C‑class High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative ViewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative ViewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative ViewsAlternative Views articles
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Template:Vital article

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to pseudoscience and fringe science, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Arbitration Ruling on the Treatment of Pseudoscience

In December of 2006 the Arbitration Committee ruled on guidelines for the presentation of topics as pseudoscience in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience. The final decision was as follows:

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.
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 justification.
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.

This topic contains controversial issues, some of which have reached a consensus for approach and neutrality, and some of which may be disputed. Before making any potentially controversial changes to the article, please carefully read the discussion-page dialogue to see if the issue has been raised before, and ensure that your edit meets all of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Please also ensure you use an accurate and concise edit summary.

Archives

Archive 1	Archive 2	Archive 3
Archive 4	Archive 5	Archive 6
Archive 7	Archive 8	Archive 9
Archive 10	Archive 11	Archive 12
Archive 13	Archive 14	Archive 15
Archive 16	Archive 17	Archive 18
Archive 19	Archive 20

This page has archives. Sections older than 300 days may be automatically archived by when more than 2 sections are present.

William James was not a pseudoscientist

The first sentence of this Wikipedia entry summarizes what has happened here via the Skeptics Societies' assault (and influence on Wikipedia editorial control) regarding the credible work that has been performed in parapsychology by real scientists. To even suggest (by implication since the first sentence labels parapsychology a "pseudoscience") that William James was a practicing "pseudoscientist", or J.B. Rhine was a "pseudoscientist" - the terminology of which is well known to be used and promoted by the militant group of fundamentalists in the Skeptic's Society - is remarkably prejudicial and POV. William James was a scientist - not a pseudoscientist as was J.B. Rhine. 159.118.158.122 (talk) 15:06, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Our sources report that parapsychology is a pseudoscience. We'd need sources indicating otherwise to change the article. — Jess· Δ ♥ 15:29, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you check your sources. If you happen to walk around Harvard University - you will find a psychology building named after professor William James. There have even been some wild rumours that William James' brother was supposedly a writer. 159.118.158.122 (talk) 15:39, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No it's you who needs to check the sources. You are saying things with are deliberate lies which are not even on the article. Nobody is calling William James or Rhine a "pseudoscientist" (those words appear nowhere on Wikipedia). That's purely an invention of yourself to stir up trouble here. What the articles states is the field of parapsychology is a pseudoscience (there are countless reliable references for this) not individual researchers themselves. Goblin Face (talk) 16:03, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

and PD James isn't a particularly good writer, in my opinion ;) -Roxy the dog (resonate) 16:43, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

PD James? You think PD James was his brother?? Really? 159.118.158.122 (talk) 16:49, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

PD James is a woman. What do you think I think? -Roxy the dog (resonate) 16:56, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh... William James had a brother whose name was Henry James. Why do I even bother? 159.118.158.122 (talk) 17:02, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Was he a parawossname? -Roxy the dog (resonate) 17:08, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have read two biographies of William James, both his brother (the novelist Henry James) and his sister Alice James were not fond of psychical research. It's nice to see you are interested in the James family as they were all fascinating individuals but I am utterly lost what Henry James etc has anything to do with this article. It seems you are using this talk pages as a forum. Your conspiracy theories about skeptic groups on the article is also wrong. Nothing positive is going to come out of ranting on here. Goblin Face (talk) 17:53, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pseudoscience?

I'd hate to beat a dead horse, but again, I'm damned sure parapsychology isn't a pseudoscience. The sources cited to back up this idea are skeptic sources (and I don't mean "scientific skeptics", I mean "professional debunker" skeptics) that often refer to themselves, and thus only represent one-half of the debate. When people like Scott McGreal go back to say how parapsychology is a pseudoscience, they often refer not only to these same skeptics (who have been refuted again and again -- any look at the parapsychological literature will show this) but also to the worst events in parapsychology as evidence for the entire thing's being a complete sham. James Randi, in particular, has often been caught citing rumors instead of actual facts (see, for example, https://web.archive.org/web/20120412105918/http://michaelprescott.freeservers.com/FlimFlam.htm), and others like Zusne and Jones have been replied to several times. This isn't a conspiracy; this is a fact. And even among these sources, there are some signs that suggest parapsychology is scientific in its approaches (see Akers 1987: "Parapsychology is a Science, but Its Findings Are Inconclusive"). Citing one-half of this debate as if the final word lies with these skeptics seems like academic dishonesty. If you don't cite the replies to the skeptics, you wind up with a circular argument like this: "The skeptics who say this is pseudoscience are right, and we know they're right because the replies to them are terrible, and we know the replies are terrible because the skeptics are right." PhiChiPsiOmega (talk) 16:02, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Take, for example, the treatment of Puthoff and Targ. Nowhere in the article is it mentioned that they responded to critics, and a search on Google Scholar reveals that their very response is never cited by skeptics like James Alcock. PhiChiPsiOmega (talk) 16:02, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 83: / Line 83: @@
 ::::::::: I have read two biographies of William James, both his brother (the novelist Henry James) and his sister Alice James were not fond of psychical research. It's nice to see you are interested in the James family as they were all fascinating individuals but I am utterly lost what Henry James etc has anything to do with this article. It seems you are using this talk pages as a forum. Your conspiracy theories about skeptic groups on the article is also wrong. Nothing positive is going to come out of ranting on here. [[User:Goblin Face|Goblin Face]] ([[User talk:Goblin Face|talk]]) 17:53, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
+== Pseudoscience? ==
+I'd hate to beat a dead horse, but again, I'm damned sure parapsychology isn't a pseudoscience. The sources cited to back up this idea are skeptic sources (and I don't mean "scientific skeptics", I mean "professional debunker" skeptics) that often refer to themselves, and thus only represent one-half of the debate. When people like Scott McGreal go back to say how parapsychology is a pseudoscience, they often refer not only to these same skeptics (who have been refuted again and again -- any look at the parapsychological literature will show this) but also to the worst events in parapsychology as evidence for the entire thing's being a complete sham. James Randi, in particular, has often been caught citing rumors instead of actual facts (see, for example, https://web.archive.org/web/20120412105918/http://michaelprescott.freeservers.com/FlimFlam.htm), and others like Zusne and Jones have been replied to several times. This isn't a conspiracy; this is a fact. And even among these sources, there are some signs that suggest parapsychology is scientific in its approaches (see Akers 1987: "Parapsychology is a Science, but Its Findings Are Inconclusive"). Citing one-half of this debate as if the final word lies with these skeptics seems like academic dishonesty. If you don't cite the replies to the skeptics, you wind up with a circular argument like this: "The skeptics who say this is pseudoscience are right, and we know they're right because the replies to them are terrible, and we know the replies are terrible because the skeptics are right." [[User:PhiChiPsiOmega|PhiChiPsiOmega]] ([[User talk:PhiChiPsiOmega|talk]]) 16:02, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
+Take, for example, the treatment of Puthoff and Targ. Nowhere in the article is it mentioned that they responded to critics, and a search on Google Scholar reveals that their very response is never cited by skeptics like James Alcock. [[User:PhiChiPsiOmega|PhiChiPsiOmega]] ([[User talk:PhiChiPsiOmega|talk]]) 16:02, 8 March 2014 (UTC)