User talk:Martinphi

Archive 1    Archive 2    Archive 3    Archive 4    Paranormal primer

Controversy in parapsychology

This user is a part of WikiProject Paranormal, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the paranormal. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.

Please put all new content

at the bottom of the page

-Thanks

You scored as Cultural Creative. Cultural Creatives are probably the newest group to enter this realm. You are a modern thinker who tends to shy away from organized religion but still feels as if there is something greater than ourselves. You are very spiritual, even if you are not religious. Life has a meaning outside of the rational.

Cultural Creative 94% Postmodernist 88% Existentialist 81% Idealist 63% Modernist 63% Fundamentalist 44% Materialist 31% Romanticist 25%

Hi all,

I live/work here in Monument Valley Utah. It is wilderness, and I have a lot of time to study, especially Parapsychology.

I'd be very happy to hear from you.

Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 06:15, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

		The Original Barnstar
		I award you this barnstar for your many excellent contributions to the parapsychology article as well as your many contributions to the area as a whole. - Solar 23:50, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

		The Original Barnstar
		I award you this barnstar for your many outstanding contributions to paranormal articles. - Dreadlocke ☥ 22:04, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Come play

LOL! I love it! Love the sandbox too, what a cool idea! Yes, I'd love to play! Fantastic! Hey, what happened to your barnstar? Dreadlocke ☥ 06:19, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Because of the bandwidth problem? I see. Heck, I'm hoping for more barnstars myself...;) Dreadlocke ☥ 06:26, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

parapsychology as a science

All the proof that is needed is the fact that the AAAS is partnered with a noted parapsychology research group.

If America's most prestigious scientific scientific grouping supports the scientific nature of parapsychology research, then it is clearly and undeniably a science.

HOWEVER, while parapsychology is a science. Not all of its research/finding are scientific or supported by science. For example, the existence of EVP can be researched using science, and anomalies have been found using scientific methods for finding anomalies, it absolutely has not been rationalized using science and is not accepted as proven by science.

perfectblue 07:27, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

The fact that the AAAS supports the validity of parapsychology as a research field is all the proof that you need that it is a science. Else, try looking up the Ganzfeld experiment. It's had more mainstream coverage than most.

perfectblue 07:43, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

You could try looking at "An Introduction to Parapsychology" by Harvey Irwin. Irwin has lectured in parapsychology as a scientific field for 25 years at the university of New England and has a lot to say. Try reading chapter 17. It deals with both efforts to establish parapsychology as a science, and mainstream sciences reactions.

Also try looking at J B Rhine's efforts to ensure that parapsychology experiments were conducted under controlled laboratory conditions, and that they used credible methodologies.

perfectblue 09:28, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

You might also like to point out that parapsychology is "the scientific study of ....", not the "search for proof for.....". This means that mainstream scientists who uses science to debunk something paranormal, or to prove a previous parapsychology experiment is flawed, are themselves conducting a parapsychology experiment.

perfectblue 09:37, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

EVP IV

Told ya I didn't like the EVP article nor it's editorial disputes, and your last comments are exactly why. The entire thing is horrible, that's why I always stayed away from it. Dreadlocke ☥ 07:45, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

2:51am eastern standard time here. No idea why I'm still up. I'm just a Wikimaniac, I guess...;) Dreadlocke ☥ 07:52, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

"Casters of pearls", oh, man, I just cannot stop laughing about that one! LOL!!! Dreadlocke ☥ 08:12, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

It would be great if you could come back to the EVP talk page and point out some weasel words and incoherent statements. I'm showing them a few, but it would be great to have your assistance...Dreadlocke ☥ 22:04, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I've got to go to the store. Can we remove the tags for now, and if the issues aren't addressed, then put them back? This seems to be a huge sore point with them. Dreadlocke ☥ 22:24, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Unless you have an objection, since we're actively discussing the issues you raised, I'll temporarily remove the tags and put them back if they're not addressed to your satisfaction. Let me know if this is not ok. Dreadlocke ☥ 22:28, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

No probs, the EVP article has been a bit of a problem even more than most. It seems tht we have been going round in circles for months and the different senses of EVP seems to never get resolved. I'm not at all sure how we're going to get the thing into a reasonable state.Davkal 02:39, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Martin, to your point about someone not liking "is defined as", I don't see any problem with it. The skeptics will have a problem with it, because it's a clear statement, without skeptical qualifieres; but a clear statement from all views is absolutely necessary for NPOV - and since the actual basis for EVP is indeed from the view that it exists, and is from a paranormal source - that is the significant definition to start the article with. From the skeptical viewpoint, EVP is a mirage, false, and so EVP doesn't exist, thus there would be no article. Secondly, EVP hasn't been proven false. You can't base an article on those negative assumptions. That's what their entire argument started with, "nothing in science, therefore only popular culture can be used". Well, pop culture thinks it exists. Dreadlocke ☥ 04:04, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Wow!

Thank you for the magnificent, moving barnstar!!! WOW! How did you know I've always wanted one of those! Really appreciated man...now, I'm getting tired...oh, wait..am I allowed? Do I lose my "tireless" barnstar if I get tired? Augh! Sincerely, thanks...! 08:14, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Edward

Nice analysis of Belbo's position! I think you clarified it nicely. Dreadlocke ☥ 02:31, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Can't we get the John Edward pic back?

I'm working on it. The original [1] was put up by Elembis and disputed by wikidudeman. It's in licensing limbo at the moment. Dreadlocke ☥ 05:59, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Till the next mediation over that word.

Definite word, man. I'm sure it's not over, the 'other side' won't give it up until it says "John Edward is a fraud and a fake". Never ending battle for truth, justice and NPOV!! Dreadlocke ☥ 07:05, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

What do you think of the photo? I scanned it in from the book I own. Hard to get the colors right on it....Dreadlocke ☥ 08:48, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Image:John_Edward_Crossing_Over_Cover_Face_1.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:John_Edward_Crossing_Over_Cover_Face_1.gif. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. MECU≈talk 22:17, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Regarding User_talk:Martinphi/parascience

Well heck, I was just arguing a point that I thought was valid without realizing that others already had that idea and were talking about it. So far I've been asking where does it say that parapsychology must produce positive results to be a science, and here you go and find sources about that very thing! This would be a great contribution to the article! Great job. If anything, it will help the mediation which is probably where this is heading. --Nealparr ^{(yell at me|for what i've done)} 04:11, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Extrasensory Perception

On User:Kazuba (which I update too frequently) I have decided to open the file drawers belonging to Dean Radin at Extrasensory Perception. (Start from the beginning of the section.) There are a few citations missing. I hope to find these sources again. But I haven't made up my mind how hard I want to search. Here too, I tried to clarify my use of terms relating to mental health and the mind. It is not name calling. It is a somewhat educated observation. There is too much paranoia on the Wikipedia. "When you attack my beliefs you attack me." What's with that? Everything is an attack there are no such things as disagreement and challenge? I have seen you use the "us" and "them" labels, a bad sign. Perhaps you will be entertained by my weird style of magic. User:Kazuba 26 Feb 2007

Parapsychology article

Would ArbCom take the case (I mean, after mediation)? Aren't their decisions binding? I want a ruleing on parapsychology as a science for the purposes of Wikipedia. Failed science or no. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 23:21, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea. Neutrality is number 2 on the 5 pillar list Wikipedia:Five pillars. Number 5 is that there's no hard rules. So while I'm not totally familar with it, I doubt anything is actually "binding". What I'm shooting for is number 2. By attributing the definition to the Parapsychology Association, it is neutrally put. That is, you can either agree with the Parapsychology Association or not. With deeply controversial topics (like I said, the same debate going on here has been going on since the 70s), it's up to the reader to decide for themselves. We'll see how it goes. Are you happy with the current opening?

--Nealparr ^{(yell at me|for what i've done)} 00:33, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Is Parapsychology a Science?

I second much of what perfectblue has to say. Between the AAAS membership and the Ganzfield debate appearing on the pages of Psychological Bulletin, parapsychology should be permitted to call itself a science in the realm of Wikipedia.

Thanks so much for the tips that you left on my user page.

--Annalisa Ventola _{(Talk | Contribs)} 03:33, 27 February 2007 (UTC)