Talk:Parapsychology/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Parapsychology is not a field of science.

Parapsychology is NOT a science. Please see discussion here Talk:Psychic for my argument. Please don't imply parapsychology is a "field of science" or that any specific studies are "scientific" without consensus. Simply posting a link from a parapsychology website that they believe it's a science doesn't make it so. See WP:FRINGE and WP:RS for further information.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 06:58, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Parapsychology is a field of science, as per psychic talk page. Please do not remove this edit again till you have achieved consensus on this issue. You must provide proof of your POV before it can stand; again, as per Psychic talk page. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 08:33, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

What are you talking about "per psychic talk page"? I established beyond a reasonable doubt that parapsychology is NOT a field of scientific study on that page. Let's look at parapsychology and see if it fits the definition of "science". Does it (Parapsychology) follow the "scientific method"? No. Give me an example of an experimental peer-reviewed scientific studies that show positive evidence "psychics" exist, studies from credible non-fringe scientific journals who's experiments have been successfully reproduced by other peer reviewed credible non-fringe scientists and posted in the criteria above. (Any studies that don't meet this criteria fall underWP:FRINGE, studies posted in fringe journals such asJournal of Scientific Exploration) I'll examine that study and explain how it did not follow the Scientific method and had methodological flaws. Thus establishing studies that show "psychics" for example are real don't follow the scientific method negating the assertion such studies are even science. If a scientific study follows the scientific method then it won't have methodological flaws. To be clear, If parapsychology is defined as the "Scientific study of the paranormal" and "Scientific" implies following the scientific method then by that definition the vast majority of the studies done by so called parapsychologists are not scientific studies. The studies that are done that attempt to find a scientific explanation for the paranormal generally come up with non-paranormal explanations and actually debunk the assertions of most purported 'parapsychologists'. The studies that have positive results always have methodological flaws and thus aren't scientific. Now what is parapsychology? Is parapsychology the attempt to come to conclusions that agree that "supernatural" phenomenon exist or is it the attempt to study purported supernatural phenomenon and come to a conclusion whether it agrees with their precognitions or not? If it's the former then it isn't a science. If it's the latter then 99% of the studies done by so called parapsychologists aren't scientific studies and the 1% of studies done actually disagree with the concept of "supernatural phenomenon" to begin with. Unless of course you want to admit that the people who refute instances of "supernatural phenomenon" are actually parapsychologists themselves. Making such people as James Randi or Ray Hyman parapsychologists. Which of course brings us to the conclusion that if 'parapsychology' does exist as a scientific study then there can't be a "scientific field of parapsychology" because there have been no positive results brought forth to justify it being such. It would be like calling Lamarckism a 'field of science' even though all of the studies done refute it's theories. Also, Britannica doesn't even claim parapsychology is a "field of science" or even "scientific study". See the entry for encyclopedia britannica [[1]] which also BTW mentions it as a "pseudo science" [[2]]. Hardly any credible encyclopedias do. Moreover, What justifies Parapsychologies existence as a field of science? Nothing. Why can't the super small fraction of studies that are legitimately studying so called "psi" phenomenon be studies done in the field of psychology or neuropsychology or even cognitive science? Who cares? Just make up new fields of science for every little thing? No. Science isn't about adding un-needed words to it's lexicon. Especially words that have no relevant meaning. If "parapsychology" is justified as a field of science then it must have numerous accomplishments to show it's merit. If it doesn't then it isn't a field of science. The "study of psi phenomenon" is nothing more than a neuropsychological or psychological study. You can't just invent a whole new field of science based on a few flawed or unsuccessful studies. Does the fact that some purported parapsychological events occur outside of the mind (Telekinesis) justify a new term? No. Just because purported events of "psychic phenomenon" occur "outside of the mind" doesn't negate neuropsychologies capability to study them. Parapsychologists claim the origins of "ESP", Telekinesis are inside of the mind. Making them available for study by neurology or neuropsychology. I'm not disputing the fact that it CAN be studied following the scientific method. My dispute is whether or not you can call "parapsychology" a field of science because self purported "parapsychologists" don't follow the scientific method when they come to positive conclusions.(When they do follow the scientific method they come to negative conclusions showing no evidence for "psychics"). If there are any "scientific studies" out there done on so called "psi" for instance and those studies failed to show "psi" exists then those are nothing but failed studies. Not a "field of science". Are there any "Nobel prizes" of science in parapsychology? No. Why? Because Parapsychology has nothing to show for itself. It's a "non field of science". If you want to assert that parapsychology is a "field of science" then we need to point out the fact that it has published absolutely no positive studies from credible non-fringe scientific journals who's experiments have been successfully reproduced by other peer reviewed credible non-fringe scientists. We need to make it clear in the article that there is an absolute lack of scientific evidence published that meets the criteria I posted above. If we don't then the article would be in violation of WP:FRINGE. So we can either exclude making the absurd assertion that it's a "field of science" or we can simply explain that it's a "failed field of science" that has published nothing positive that supports the assertions of so many "parapsychologists". No of course i'm a busy man and If you want to mention it as a "failed field of science" at all then you need to find adequate sources for such. I won't be bothered with finding the sources to make that assertion to create NPOV just because you seem intent on claiming it's a 'field of science'. So if you want to claim it's a 'field of science' then we'll have to explain it's a failure as such which of course would require sources that you'll need to find. So in conclusion. No, Parapsychology is absolutely not a field of science. Can purported paranormal events be studied scientifically in theory? Maybe they can. Maybe they have. In such events studies that have been done which followed the scientific method and had no methodological flaws have shown negative evidence supporting the existence of these things. In cases where positive evidence came up, they always tend to have methodological flaws. Meaning you simply can't have a "field of science" based on failed scientific studies.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 09:20, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Parapsychology is a science

Parapsychology (aka Psychical Research) is indeed a field of science. This is WP:V according to Encarta Encyclopedia, which states:

"Psychical Research, also parapsychology, scientific investigation of alleged phenomena and events that appear to be unaccounted for by conventional physical, biological, or psychological theories."

The University of Edinburgh defines it as a science and offers advanced degrees that include the study of parapsychology, [3], so does the University of Northampton, and the University of Hertfordshire, among others. Harvard and Stanford both have conducted parapsychology research - which they consider science - and although it's not widely known, Harvard and Stanford have fellowships endowed explicitly for psychical research. It's part of psychology in a lot of schools, and is a science under that umbrella as well. Dreadlocke ☥ 03:47, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Lest we forget, other major scientific parapsychology studies are carried out at:

• Princeston University, PEAR
• University of Cambridge, Mind-Matter Unification Project of the Theory of Condensed Matter Group at the Cavendish Laboratory.
• Duke University, Rhine Research Center.

There are plenty more. Definitely considered a science. Dreadlocke ☥ 05:34, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Post up those studies done by Harvard and Stanford.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 04:06, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

The studies done by PEAR were a total failure and were unable to be replicated by other scientists.[[4]]. As a result after 25 they are shutting down their labs in princeton [[5]]. As for the other links. Care to provide links to actual studies done by them that provide positive conclusions?Wikidudeman ^(talk) 06:01, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikidudeman, I think you're confusing the current methodologies of parapsychology and the interpretation of the results of those methodologies as the definition of parapsychology.

Parapsychology is not a methodology. Looking for psychic phenomena in dice rolling experiments is not the definition of parapsychology. That's just a methodology, and a methodology that might change tomorrow. Parapsychology itself is defined as the scientific investigation of alleged psychic phenomena. There is nothing in that statement that says anything about how that scientific investigation is done. It completely allows for a well designed experiment that follows the scientific method to the letter and proves that psychic phenomena doesn't exist. That too would be parapsychology. I'm very doubtful that James Randi would want to be labeled as such, but when he debunks or exposes an alleged psychic as a fraud, he is doing parapsychological work in the sense that he is "scientifically investigating alleged psychic phenomena".

The often disputed current methods of parapsychologists have nothing to do with it's definition as a field of science. Methodologies and interpretations might be pseudoscience, but the term parapsychology itself can't be because it's an empty term. There's nothing in the term itself that has an action that can be pseudoscientific or scientific. If an experiment is considered pseudoscientific, then by definition it's not parapsychology, because parapsychology requires it to be scientific. Dice rolling experiments, for example, if pseudoscientific, is not parapsychology itself. It is a flawed method mistakenly labeled as parapsychology. A person who fraudulently doctors the results of an experiment is not a parapsychologist, he or she is a person mistakenly labeled as a parapsychologist. When other scientists proves a so-called parapsychological experiment as being pseudoscientific, they are actually proving an experiment to not be parapsychological.

Let me take the skeptic's stance for a moment and still illustrate my point. I'll add my skeptical comments in green to the scientific method from its Wikipedia article:

Of course, throughout all the above I was assuming the skeptic position. What I am showing, however, is why every mainstream source defines parapsychology as a science. It is because whether you assume a proponent or skeptic position, parapsychology itself is "the scientific inquiry into psychic phenomena". The methods themselves might not be, but methods can be changed and perfected. The only valid debates are over the methodologies and whether parapsychology as a field of science is a worthwhile field of science.

Now, that took awhile to write up. Someone better read it all : )

--Nealparr ^{(yell at me|for what i've done)} 05:56, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Very nice, Neal! Well done! Dreadlocke ☥ 06:12, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Nealparr, Yes I read it all and you're missing a very important point. If parapsychology is defined as the "Scientific study of the paranormal" and "Scientific" implies following the scientific method then by that definition the vast majority of the studies done by so called parapsychologists are not scientific studies. The studies that are done that attempt to find a scientific explanation for the paranormal generally come up with non-paranormal explanations and actually debunk the assertions of most purported 'parapsychologists'. Now what is parapsychology? Is parapsychology the attempt to come to conclusions that agree that "supernatural" phenomenon exist or is it the attempt to study purported supernatural phenomenon and come to a conclusion whether it agrees with their precognitions or not? If it's the former then it isn't a science. If it's the latter then 99% of the studies done by so called parapsychologists aren't scientific studies and the 1% of studies done actually disagree with the concept of "supernatural phenomenon" to begin with. Leading us to the conclusion there's not even such a thing as "Parapsychology". Unless of course you want to admit that the people who refute instances of "supernatural phenomenon" are actually parapsychologists themselves. Making such people as James Randi or Ray Hyman parapsychologists. Which of course brings us to the conclusion that if 'parapsychology' does exist as a scientific study then there can't be a "scientific field of parapsychology" because there have been no positive results brought forth to justify it being such. It would be like calling Lamarckism a 'field of science' even though all of the studies done refute it's theories. Which of course means saying "The consensus in the scientific field of parapsychology" isn't justified either way.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 06:18, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Parapsychology itself isn't a set of beliefs or conclusions. It's a category in which to lump scientific study into psychic phenomena. There's a reason it doesn't have an -ism at the end of it like paranormalism or Lamarckism. It's just a category of study and not a belief. It's an -ology. Whatever individuals within or without parapsychology conclude, or believe, or do, is irrelevant in defining the actual term. A case could be made, yes, that parapsychologists aren't real parapsychologists, or that some skeptics are actually parapsychologists without knowing it. A case could also be made that only 1% of the work that is passed off as parapsychological is really parapsychological. But none of that has anything to do with the definition of the category itself. The category isn't technically tied to any set of beliefs, conclusions, or positive results.

I'm not advocating a consensus statement. I'm just pointing out the true definition of the term.

--Nealparr ^{(yell at me|for what i've done)} 06:54, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Let me state it a little simpler...Why can't the super small fraction of studies that are legitimately studying so called "psi" phenomenon be studies done in the field of psychology or neuropsychology or even cognitive science? What justifies "parapsychology's" existence? Who's to say that all of the scientific studies that have been done to investigate instances of "psi" phenomenon aren't actually psychological or neuropsychological studies? Inventing a whole new "field of science" based on a few studies that try to investigate so called "paranormal phenomenon" makes no sense. It would be like me inventing a field of science called "para-astronomy" to study whether our moon was actually made by little blue men from Neptune.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 07:24, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

What justifies "parapsychology's" existence?

I'm comfortable leaving that up to others to figure out. It probably has to do with scientists trying to reduce and reduce and reduce until its as small as it can be. Take psychology for example. Slice it up and you've got neuropsychology. Add a prominent theorist and you've got Freudian psychology. Add some wackos and you have abnormal psychology. Set psychology to the task of trying to figure out why we do what we do and you've got behavioral psychology. Take something that has to do with the mind, but is a little outside of it, and it's not really psychology but para-psychology. You get props in science for coining new phrases. Invent a word that you can justify a need for and they give you a place in history as in "John Smith coined the term para-widget in 2007 to describe objects that are almost widgets but not quite". --Nealparr ^{(yell at me|for what i've done)} 08:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

You're evading the issue here. Science isn't about adding un-needed words to it's lexicon. Especially words that have no relevant meaning. If "parapsychology" is justified as a field of science then it must have numerous accomplishments to show it's merit. If it doesn't then it isn't a field of science. The "study of psi phenomenon" is nothing more than a neuropsychological or psychological study. You can't just invent a whole new field of science based on a few flawed or unsuccessful studies.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 04:04, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not evading anything. What I am doing is taking time that I don't really have to address each changing point that you come up with as a requirement for it being a field of science. Whenever I address something, you come up with something else.

You first said that a field must be able to follow the scientific method to be a field of science. I showed you that parapsychology can. Then you said it was a set of beliefs and had to show positive results to support those beliefs. I explained that as a category of scientific inquiry it's not required to show results, positive or negative, and that as a category it's not a belief system (the -ism vs. -ology). Then you said that the studies that go on can just be thrown into another field of science and that parapsychology isn't necessary. I didn't agree or disagree on whether parapsychology is necessary, but pointed out that studying something that theoretically is outside the mind, the extra- in the sensory, can't by definition fall under neuropsychological or psychological.

I mean, you just said that "the 'study of psi phenomenon' is nothing more than a neuropsychological or psychological study" when earlier you were saying that studying psi at all is not science because it doesn't produce positive results. If it's not science, as you said, then how is it neuropsychological or psychological? Would it all the sudden start producing positive results under those other scientific fields?

I've addressed everything you've brought up and now you're suggesting that because it has its own name it's not a scientific field. You seriously want me to address that as well? I can point out that Egyptology is a legitimate scientific field eventhough it's also archaeology, but then you'll come up with something else to waste my time. I started off trying to find a compromise here, but you just won't give up.

Seriously, give it up. If you really feel strongly that what you're saying is absolutely right, then write the article yourself and let us critique it. I'm fine with that.

--Nealparr ^{(yell at me|for what i've done)} 06:10, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, I keep coming up with explanations for why "parapsychology" isn't a science simply because there are so many. Secondly, You never explained how parapsychology follows the scientific method. You evaded the point by asserting it can be studied scientifically which isn't what I denied. Thirdly, I never said "parapsychology" was a set of beliefs. I did say that in order for it to be a justifiable field of science it needs to show something it has discovered or has to have some accomplishments to be a field of science. You never justified the claim that a field of study doesn't need any results to be a science. Fourthly, Just because purported events of "psychic phenomenon" occur "outside of the mind" doesn't negate neuropsychologies capability to study them. Parapsychologists claim the origins of "ESP" etc are inside of the mind. Making them available for study by neurology or neuropsychology. Fifthly, When I say that the "study of purported psi phenomenon" can exist within the field of neuropsychology I'm making an assumption "for the sake of argument" that studies do exist out there that have followed the scientific method when studying "Psi". If you feel my objections are a "waste of your time" then feel free to stop responding to me. However I will continue to put up valid objections to anything I see that doesn't make sense or violates wikipedia policy.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 06:22, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

If I may quote and comment:

Firstly, I keep coming up with explanations for why "parapsychology" isn't a science simply because there are so many. What's left? Secondly, You never explained how parapsychology follows the scientific method. I said specifically that it can follow the scientific method and that you are confusing current methodologies with the field itself. The methodology is not the field. A bad experiment in neuropsychology doesn't toss neuropsychology out of science. You evaded the point by asserting it can be studied scientifically which isn't what I denied. No, I addressed it directly by asserting that it can be studied scientifically. Thirdly, I never said "parapsychology" was a set of beliefs. I did say that in order for it to be a justifiable field of science it needs to show something it has discovered or has to have some accomplishments to be a field of science. You never justified the claim that a field of study doesn't need any results to be a science. That's because I didn't make that claim. The claim I made is that a valid science can disprove an idea, ie. negative results are still a valid science. What I said is that it doesn't require positive results. Fourthly, Just because purported events of "psychic phenomenon" occur "outside of the mind" doesn't negate neuropsychologies capability to study them. Parapsychologists claim the origins of "ESP" etc are inside of the mind. Making them available for study by neurology or neuropsychology. Again, just as Egyptology is a subcat of Archaeology, Parapsychology being a subcat doesn't make it a non-science. Fifthly, When I say that the "study of purported psi phenomenon" can exist within the field of neuropsychology I'm making an assumption "for the sake of argument" that studies do exist out there that have followed the scientific method when studying "Psi". That's fine, but why can it exist in neuropsychology and be science but if it exists in parapsychology it's not? If you feel my objections are a "waste of your time" then feel free to stop responding to me. However I will continue to put up valid objections to anything I see that doesn't make sense or violates wikipedia policy.

There, all your objections are addressed directly. What did I say that you still have a problem with? If nothing, science is going back in the article.

--Nealparr ^{(yell at me|for what i've done)} 07:17, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

What's left? I'll wait until you refute what i've already brought up. I said specifically that it can follow the scientific method and that you are confusing current methodologies with the field itself. The methodology is not the field. A bad experiment in neuropsychology doesn't toss neuropsychology out of science. No. You're confusing it. I'm not disputing the fact that it CAN be studied following the scientific method. My dispute is whether or not you can call "parapsychology" a field of science or not because "parapsychologists" don't follow the scientific method when they come to positive conclusions. No, I addressed it directly by asserting that it can be studied scientifically. I never denied that. That's because I didn't make that claim. The claim I made is that a valid science can disprove an idea, ie. negative results are still a valid science. What I said is that it doesn't require positive results. On the contrary. You're confusing "Field of science" with specific studies. Yes. Science can refute studies. But inorder for anything to meet the merit of a "field of science" it needs to have positive results on it's side. Egyptology is a subcat of Archaeology, Parapsychology being a subcat doesn't make it a non-science. Egyptology has made literally thousands of discoveries and has produced a lot of positive results. "Parapsychology" hasn't. Egyptology meets the merit of a sub category of archeology. Parapsychology doesn't meet any merit. That's fine, but why can it exist in neuropsychology and be science but if it exists in parapsychology it's not? Because these are specific "studies". There can be many worthless and negative studies in a field of science as long as there are positive studies. However a field of science can't be a field of science based on nothing but failed studies. Sorry. There, all your objections are addressed directly. What did I say that you still have a problem with? If nothing, science is going back in the article. Addressed directly and then refuted by me. Don't think about claiming parapsychology is a "science" in this article when it isn't.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 02:50, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I read each of your replies. You keep coming back to the statement that parapsychology must prove that psychic phenomena exists in order to be a field of science. In fact, everything you said in your last statment has to do with that. Where do you get that idea from? Where does it say that any field of science has to pick a conclusion and then prove that conclusion in order to be a science? According to the scientific method, science is about coming up with a hypothesis and proving or disproving it. You have an idea, you design a test, and the test shows... something. Tests don't have to pass or fail to be called science, they just have to be conducted scientifically. Unless I read it wrong, you're saying that somewhere it says that they have to pass at least once. Where does it say that?

--Nealparr ^{(yell at me|for what i've done)} 04:40, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

If there are any "scientific studies" out there done on so called "psi" for instance and those studies failed to show "psi" exists then those are nothing but failed studies. Not a "field of science". Are there any "Nobel prizes" of science in parapsychology? No. Why? Because Parapsychology has nothing to show for itself. It's a "non field of science". If you want to assert that parapsychology is a "field of science" then we need to point out the fact that it has published absolutely no positive studies from credible non-fringe scientific journals who's experiments have been successfully reproduced by other peer reviewed credible non-fringe scientists. We need to make it clear in the article that there is an absolute lack of scientific evidence published that meets the criteria I posted above. If we don't then the article would be in violation of WP:FRINGE. So we can either exclude making the absurd assertion that it's a "field of science" or we can simply explain that it's a "failed field of science" that has published nothing positive that supports the assertions of so many "parapsychologists".Wikidudeman ^(talk) 07:09, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem with you saying that it is a failed science personally. My point was simply that it is a field of science. Failed science, successfuly science, it's all the same to me. If you're willing to call it a failed science then I'll move on to the other topic below.

--Nealparr ^{(yell at me|for what i've done)} 07:41, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

No, If you want to mention it as a "failed field of science" at all then you need to find adequate sources for such. I won't be bothered with finding the sources to make that assertion to create NPOV just because you seem intent on claiming it's a 'field of science'. So if you want to claim it's a 'field of science' then we'll have to explain it's a failure as such which of course would require sources that you'll need to find.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 07:51, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I am saying it is a field of science. I'm not saying the article needs to say that. The parapsychology article should say it, sure, but in this article it's not needed. That's why I never put that in any of my edits. Besides, I wouldn't say it is a failed field of science. The qualifier "failed" isn't neutral. I would simply say what all the other Encyclopedia's say: "Parapsychology is the scientific study of alleged psychic phenomena". They thought that was neutral way of saying it and I haven't seen any reason to disagree with them.

--Nealparr ^{(yell at me|for what i've done)} 08:42, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

None of the prominent encyclopedias I've read have ever claimed parapsychology is a "field of science" or even "scientific study". See the entry for encyclopedia britannica [[6]] which also BTW mentions it as a "pseudo science" [[7]]. Secondly, If you're not intent on putting it in this article then I don't see a point in discussing it here. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 08:55, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and other reliable Encyclopedias, like Encarta, say scientific. So I guess we have to talk about all that too. It should be moved over to the Parapsychology page though.

--Nealparr ^{(yell at me|for what i've done)} 09:30, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Wrong, Encarta does not claim it's a "field of science". It says it's the "scientific investigation of the paranormal"(Which I never disputed) but does not claim 'field of science"[[8]]. Neither does Bartleby for that matter. [[9]]. Webster says "field of study" not field of science. [[10]].Wikidudeman ^(talk) 09:41, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikidudeman ^(talk) 09:41, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Copy this over to the parapsychology page and we can discuss it there. --Nealparr ^{(yell at me|for what i've done)} 09:43, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

If you read what I said, it was that Encyclopedias say "Parapsychology is the scientific study of alleged psychic phenomena". Please read what I say before saying I'm wrong. I said specifically "scientific study" before you came in and said it doesn't say field it says study. Maybe if you read what I said you might actually agree with some of it.

--Nealparr ^{(yell at me|for what i've done)} 09:56, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Now that we're over here, let me respond to your "I established beyond a reasonable doubt that parapsychology is NOT a field of scientific study". The reasonable doubt that I reasonably pointed out above is that it meets every definition of a science except (as skeptics argue), it doesn't produce positive results. Then I asked where is it required to produce positive results and you said it might be a failed science. And I said that a failed science is a science nonetheless. Is that pretty much where we left off?

--Nealparr ^{(yell at me|for what i've done)} 10:06, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

We're far from over here. I know what you said. It doesn't support your argument. Just because something can be studied scientifically doesn't make it a "field of science". Sorry. Moreover, I have yet to see any evidence any parapsych claims have been successfully studied scientifically with any positive results. Nothing you said supports the assertion it's a "field of science".Wikidudeman ^(talk) 10:08, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Alright, we've both stated our arguments and made some progress and still disagree on some pretty important issues. Let's put that to the side for a moment. Now let's talk about what this article should actually say. I assume the dispute is over this line: "Parapsychology is the study of certain types of paranormal phenomena, or of phenomena which appear to be paranormal" and that some editors want it to say scientific field of study. Is that correct? If not, please let me know where the dispute is.

Again, just talking about what this article should say, looking over the history it suggests that you and Martinphi have strong ideas of how it should be worded. If you can please take a few moments to write what you feel it should say, maybe that's a good starting point.

--Nealparr ^{(yell at me|for what i've done)} 19:07, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I like the way it's currently worded. "Parapsychology is the study of certain types of paranormal phenomena, or of phenomena which appear to be paranormal."Wikidudeman ^(talk) 00:37, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

How about "Parapsychology is the scientific study of certain types of paranormal phenomena, or of phenomena which appear to be paranormal," as long as it doesn't say field of science? --Nealparr ^{(yell at me|for what i've done)} 02:15, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

No, That takes a bit thick brush and paints all of parapsychology as "scientific" when in reality 99% of what you'd call parapsychology studies are anything but.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 06:24, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Just looking for a compromise based on what you said above: "Wrong, Encarta does not claim it's a 'field of science'. It says it's the 'scientific investigation of the paranormal'(Which I never disputed) but does not claim 'field of science'". I figured if you weren't disputing that then it might be an acceptible compromise.

--Nealparr ^{(yell at me|for what i've done)} 06:33, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not disputing the implication in the article that these things can be studied scientifically. I'm disputing the implication that "parapsychology" is some sort of field that does so. When in reality the purported parapsychologists don't do it scientifically. I for one don't see a problem with "Parapsychology is the study of certain types of paranormal phenomena, or of phenomena which appear to be paranormal." What's your problem with that?Wikidudeman ^(talk) 07:02, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

What I am doing is trying to settle the dispute so that 1) editors are reasonably happy (win-win), 2) the article is stable (no revert war), and 3) the article accurately describes the subject matter. My motivation in doing so comes from the fact that Wikipedia articles are syndicated all around the web as a reference. Journalists often use Wikipedia as a source.

So while trying to bring about 1 and 2, I think 3 is most important.

If the definition of parapsychology is "the scientific study of psychical phenomena", I think it should say that. The rest of the article explains how it may be a failed science, and how it may be bad science, and how the methods used in parapsychology may be pseudoscience. In fact, the very next paragraph sums up the controversy very well, but doesn't make sense because the first paragraph never introduces the word science.

So, how about this:

• If not "Parapsychology is the scientific field to study certain types of paranormal phenomena, or of phenomena which appear to be paranormal."
• And if not "Parapsychology is the scientific study of certain types of paranormal phenomena, or of phenomena which appear to be paranormal."
• Then "Parapsychology is defined as the scientific study of certain types of paranormal phenomena, or of phenomena which appear to be paranormal."

The last one makes no claim that anything done in parapsychology is scientific, just that the definition of the term is the scientific study. This wording accounts for bad parapsychologists (those who don't do it scientifically) and good parapsychologists (those who do). It is also accurate, neutral, and would be win-win for the editors involved.

--Nealparr ^{(yell at me|for what i've done)} 07:45, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

It's irrelevant right now anyway. Martin has added so much irrelevant and trivial content to the article to justify it's being called a "science" that it doesn't make any difference what the first sentence says. I'll have to deal with the other stuff first.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 07:54, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, but please come back to this when you get a chance. --Nealparr ^{(yell at me|for what i've done)} 07:59, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

If as you claim, You have no bias towards the view that "psi" is real then take a look at the article and tell me if you really believe it is encyclopedic and unbiased.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 08:04, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm going with the one dispute at a time approach. I think there can be some general improvements but if we don't get specific, it's hard to make progress. I see that there are several "neutrality disputed" tags in there. When I get a chance, I'll see to them.

--Nealparr ^{(yell at me|for what i've done)} 09:40, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

If you are actually neutral then you would find the problems with this article without me having to go through and point them out. If you don't see any problems with this article other than my (Nor removed by Martin) POV marks then I have to conclude that your belief in parapsychology is preventing you from seeing it.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 10:20, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Forgot to reply to this one. Yes, the article suffers POV issues. It can be greatly improved by skeptical additions to it but I don't have those sources and it would help if someone posted them at least to the talk page so that they can be neutrally incorporated into the article. While resolving all the POV issues, I want this particular one resolved first so we can move on to the others.

--Nealparr ^{(yell at me|for what i've done)} 19:32, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Parapsychology is a science II

I haven't yet read the above, and I'm in a hurry. But it is my basic position that it doesn't matter what anybody here thinks of parapsychology. For the purposes of Wikipedia, we can't do OR. There are opposing positions such as those of Hyman and Alcock, (usually not published in peer-reviewed journals). These opinions are based on arguments over "what is science." But the basic fact is that parapsychology has all the trappings of a science, and we are not in a position to argue with that. It doesn't matter what we think. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 20:34, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

It also does not matter whether it has results or not. A field of science need not produce results. What distinguishes a field of science from an experiment are things like the number of experiments over how many years, the peer-reviewed journals dedicated to it, the placement of its researchers, and the recognition it has received institutionally. This is usually to some extent a matter of personal judgment. We cannot afford that luxury here, so we have to go with the best external sources we can get. Thus, what matters most here is that peer-reviewed journals are WP:V, and that the AAAS recognizes parapsychology, and that parapsychology has been institutionalized as a scientific discipline for over a century. Parapsychology is more marginal than many other sciences, but it does qualify. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 22:41, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

The starting line should read "Parapsychology is the scientific study of certain types of paranormal phenomena, or of phenomena which appear to be paranormal." Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 22:42, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Even some of the most extreme skeptics of parapsychology refer to it as a scientific field. Ray Hyman, for instance, has said "Parapsychology is the only field of scientific inquiry that does not have even one exemplar that can be assigned to students with the expectation that they will observe the original results!" Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 23:41, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I've already addressed all of this, Martin. In vast detail at that.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 00:38, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

There has been vast detail. However, it hasn't really addressed the subject so far as I know, which is what Wikipedia must accept. It has mostly addressed your views of parapsychology, and your views on what science is. While interesting, this is not really on the subject. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 01:23, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

The science page says "Other fields recently named as "science" traffic less in quantitative methods, such as creation science or parapsychology. In these cases, the terminology is difficult, since these appear to fit into neither historical nor modern modes of the use of the word science." The equation of parapsychology and creationism is highly disputable; but they don't dispute that these are to be described as fields of science. Wikidudeman, you seem to be out alone here. It is true that parapsychology is different from other fields, but even a lot of its most extreme critics say it is indeed a field of science. As encyclopedists, we can't argue with such a strong definition. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 01:40, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, he's not really alone. There's a lot of people who think parapsychology is a not a science. A lot, but by no means the entire science establishment or even a lot of it. It is a fringe group as well. How's that? The spectrum of scientists in regards to parapsychology goes like this:

• Parapsychologists who believe they've found something ->
• Parapsychologists who don't believe they've found anything ->
• Other scientists who are open to parapsychology ->
• Other scientists who don't even know about parapsychology (middle ground) ->
• Other scientists who know about parapsychology but don't have an opinion either way ->
• Skeptics that acknowledge parapsychology but disagree with the findings ->
• Skeptics that wholeheartedly are opposed to both the findings and the field

That's the spectrum more or less of the scientific establishment in regards to parapsychology.

The question is, what is the consensus? What does most of the scientific establishment think of parapsychology? The truth is, most of the scientific establishment is somewhere in the middle. They either don't know about parapsychology, don't care about parapsychology, are slightly skeptical, or slightly open to it. The middle ground doesn't say parapsychology isn't a science. Only the lower tier of the spectrum makes that definitive statement. The next to the last tier kind of thinks that way, but wouldn't come out and say it. The rest of the spectrum has no problem with it being called a science.

Scientists can be found in every tier of this spectrum. Notable scientitsts who are well respected and have a valued opinion can be found in the lower tier, ie. absolutely hates parapsychology. The problem is that these well respected scientists are still just in an outside tier. Right or wrong, it is still a fringe tier, especially as Wikipedia explains in WP:FRINGE that fringe is outside the mainstream. The mainstream is literally in the middle of this spectrum.

--Nealparr ^{(yell at me|for what i've done)} 02:11, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with everything you say. I think that most scientists would look at the methods of parapsychology and call parapsychologists scientists. They might go away shaking their heads about the waste of good minds, but they would acknowledge the method. Hyman does. Another distinguishing feature of a field is the development of lingo, and I think parapsychologists definitely have that (not to mention all the other structures of course). The science article says "Within these categories are specialized scientific fields that can include elements of other scientific disciplines but often possess their own terminology and body of expertise."

"Only the lower tier of the spectrum makes that definitive statement." Yes, this fringe tier is quite small- I can only think of Alcock. Some who you would think would not acknowledge it as a field actually do, like Hyman and Randi.

So, what would you say we could conclude about whether parapsychology can be called 1) science, and 2) a field of science? Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 03:33, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

One can point to articles published by parapsychologists in mainstream journals. I'm not sure how many, but several. I'm very handicapped by having no access to a library. This one as an example. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 05:01, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I expected you to post that Utts study. That study is inherently flawed for a many reasons. Due to lack of time and passion to refute it word for word I will explain a few problems with it. Firstly, Her results haven't been successfully replicated(Dr. Ray Hyman tried and failed). Secondly, Her paper is nothing more than a "review" of the past statistical experiments done in remote viewing and a statistical interpretation of their results. She takes them at face value when in many cases their own methodology is inherently flawed. In many cases these govt studies relied on only 1 persons interpretation of the accuracy of the 'remote viewer' to come to a conclusion when in science there should of been dozens. Of course I would explain in further detail the flaws of that study, I don't have that much time on my hands. I will however point to the criticisms from other scientists of the study (posted on Utts' own site). Criticism of M. J. Bayarri and James Berger [[11]], Persi Diaconis [[12]], Ray Hyman [[13]], Robert L. Morris, [[14]], And here is Jessica Utts acknowledging the inherent flaws in the studies she examined and her interpretations of them [[15]]. Here is an explanation of the flawed ganzfeld experiments [[16]]. and from Stenger [[17]]. On a last note...If Utt's study was actually successful(it wasn't) then why is it that no one has won James Randi's 1 million dollar challenge? If these statistical studies are more than just statistical slight of hand then why is it we don't see any real world examples that can be verified? Using abstract and inherently flawed statistical examinations of ganzfeld experiments really doesn't work out in the long run due to the fact if I took the time to address each of the issues raised in them(as the people I linked to have) which would no doubt take hours, You wouldn't even understand my refutation.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 07:00, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

AGF. There will of course be no need for a refutation. Your views on parapsychology are interesting, but they do not relate to the subject of what Wikipedia must accept as a science. Your views would probably repeat what other skeptics have already said, with the addition that in your opinion this makes parapsychology not a scientific field. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 21:01, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikidudeman, even if you have spent years doing hands-on parapsychological research and scholarship in the field, and thus have such authority in the matter, it doesn't give you the right to demean or be rude to others. Nor does it mean that your opinion necessarily has primacy on Wikipedia. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 23:27, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Martin, I'm just pointing out how all of your sources are "Fringe" and are highly unreliable and dubious. Not to mention I've already pointed out how many methodological errors such studies have in them. The only reason that most of the studies in "psi" are done using highly speculative statistical methods is due to the fact it only takes a slight bias or unintentional slight of hand and such studies are totally worthless. When you're dealing with highly interpretative statistical studies like this it's very very easy to over interpret the statistics into implying there is something there that isn't. Not to mention that "UTTS" study you posted is one of the most authoritative and detailed studies in the field itself and it's methodology is easily refuted.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 07:49, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

So, now that the question has been moved to a different page, we're back to here. Here we are not talking about neutrality (the neutrality in the article can be fixed by someone coming in and actually posting skeptical sources instead of just saying they exist). Here we are talking about whether parapsychology as a term is factually "the scientific study of psychical phenomena". That issue was never resolved.

Again, with all the points argued above, what is wrong with this compromise:

• If not "Parapsychology is the scientific field to study certain types of paranormal phenomena, or of phenomena which appear to be paranormal."
• And if not "Parapsychology is the scientific study of certain types of paranormal phenomena, or of phenomena which appear to be paranormal."
• Then "Parapsychology is defined as the scientific study of certain types of paranormal phenomena, or of phenomena which appear to be paranormal."

Like I said previously, it makes no claim that anything done in parapsychology is scientific, just that the definition of the term is "the scientific study". This wording accounts for bad parapsychologists (those who don't do it scientifically) and good parapsychologists (those who do). It is also accurate, neutral, and would be win-win for the editors involved.

--Nealparr ^{(yell at me|for what i've done)} 19:04, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Current problems with article. Completly bias.

• The article makes the argument that parapsychology is a science when that is still in dispute on the talk page. You can't simply add an entire argument to an article without the dispute itself being resolved on the talk page.
• The article violates NPOV by making a positive argument without contrary viewpoints.
• The article's citations seem to be mostly from primary sources, I.E. Parapsychology websites who's accuracy is disputed.
• The article contains far too many quotes.
• The article gives far too much weight to the idea that parapsychology is a legitimate field of science and who's studies are reliable, Thus violating undue weight.
• The article's sections "fraud" and "skeptical view" are underpopulated.

These are just a few of the numerous problems with this article. The article needs massive amounts of attention and maintenance to even meet wikipedia standards.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 10:35, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

1. There is no argument that parapsychology is a scientific field. There is discussion of the subject, as per sources, all but a couple of which are peer-reviewed.
2. Contrary viewpoints are mainly in the split-off article Controversy in parapsychology.
3. The article's citations are not primarily from primary sources; primary sources used are mainly from sites like that of the Parapsychological Association, which are authoritative in the field.
4. The quotes are fine, in my opinion. They make it clear that the text of the article is not in conflict with the sources, and they give a feel for the subject.
5. "The article gives undue weight to the parapsychological standpoint": this page is about parapsychology. If there is undue weight, opposing viewpoints should be presented, in the appropriate sections, by reference to WP:V peer-reviewed sources. Skeptical websites and non-peer-reviewed sources have secondary weight.
6. The article's sections "fraud" and "skeptical view" are very underpopulated- we agree on this. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 20:55, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

1. See the discussion above. There is a HUGE debate about whether it's a science or not.
2. There should be contrary view points even in this article itself.
3. "Primary source" means a site that is bias towards the source you're siting it for. I.E. parapsychology websites.
4. The quotes are too difficult to read and there are too many.
5. It does not matter if this page is about parapsychology or not. That's no reason to violate NPOV.
6. They're only unpopulated because you're only paying attention to the other parts to add "undue weight" to the article. Violation of NPOV.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 07:41, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikidudeman, what is the point in plastering totally disputed tags all over the place? First, the tag I removed said that the particular section was in dispute, not the whole article. It wasn't the total article dispute tag you have up now. But seriously, what is the point in saying the whole article is in total dispute? You're saying that nothing in here is neutral or accurate, and that's complete bull. We've already spent time coming to agreements on some things. Instead of just criticizing the whole article, why don't you take all that energy you put into disagreeing with everyone and spend a few moments sandboxing what you think would be a perfect article. If you think there are too many quotes or that it's hard to read, sandbox something someone can work with. If you think there's not enough skeptical sources, add some.

Btw, what Martinphi was saying in (1) is that the section isn't saying that parapsychology is scientific, it is covering the discussion. He's not saying that there wasn't an argument here, just that the section isn't arguing that it is.

Seriously dude, you're the only one here refusing to compromise. If you don't like something, take some time to fix it. No one can read your mind and figure out what the heck will make you happy. The section on "Is parapsychology a science?" is a great compromise to all the previous arguments.

--Nealparr ^{(yell at me|for what i've done)} 08:22, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

1. Adding the tag makes it clear to readers to take what they read on this article with a grain of salt because it is not NPOV. That's what it's for.
2. I'm not refusing to compromise. I liked the way the article was a few days before before. Right now it violates NPOV. The section "is parapsychology science" is nothing more than a POV bias rant. Sorry.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 08:29, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

1. What I meant was, there is no argument in the article that parapsychology is a science. There is reporting from sources.
2. There are contrary viewpoints in this article.
3. This page is about parapsychology. I think the primary sources are used appropriately, with care.
4. Awwwwww. There will have to be a consensus on the quotes.
5. There is no violation of NPOV
6. No, they are only unpopulated because you are only paying attention to the other parts. It isn't my job to populate all parts of the article. I do what I want to do. If you want to populate them, then it is your job. But please don't try and rip up what is here because you think it is not balanced by other things- which you haven't put in.

Nealparr, he put the tag on, because he intends, it seems, to rip up the whole article due to the fact that no skeptic has come along and populated the parts which should contain the skeptical viewpoint.

" I liked the way the article was a few days before before. Right now it violates NPOV" OMG, I cannot believe he said that. It's kind of inconceivable that he said that. He liked it? Then why is he complaining about it, aside from the addition I want to make to the first sentence and the new section? Why is he putting a totally-disputed tag on the whole article instead of just that section? Why is he putting tags on other sections also instead of discussing them or fixing it? Didn't he read the comment I put in the text of the section, saying I need an Alcock quote to finish it off? (Oops, I see that comment is earlier in the text; but I was going to try and finish it off with an Alcock quote) What's all the fuss? Why can't WDM -who doubtless has the book- provide a good Alcock quote? Why can't he wait for consensus before editing the article? I mean, if he really liked it before, then consensus in a lot of things would be possible.

However, parapsychology is a scientific field, and should be presented as such. I stand by that. That is the policy of Wikipedia. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 09:07, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

1. I disagree. The whole section reads as a pro-parapsychology rant.
2. Not enough.
3. No. That would be like using "creationism" sources to verify assertions made in a creationist article. They are '1st party' sources not 2nd or 3rd.
4. There doesn't need to be a consensus when it doesn't meet the criteria for wikipedia.
5. Hogwash.
6. They're unpopulated because I can't populate them? Yes, Because i'm too busy dealing with your violations of NPOV.

I liked the way the article was put a few days ago. I was only complaining about the 1st sentence implying it's a science. Once that was removed I was content with leaving it as is for a while.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 09:14, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Your rudeness is beyond the pale. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 09:31, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikidudeman, I'm beginning to think you really don't care what the article says as long as it has the disclaimer that it's not science. Is that a pretty good estimate?

--Nealparr ^{(yell at me|for what i've done)} 09:37, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Martin, I don't see how what I sad was anywhere near rude.

Nealparr, No. If the article argues that it's science I want a NPOV tag there. If the article doesn't make any such argument and does not imply it's a science then I don't need a NPOV tag. Seems pretty cut and dry to me.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 09:40, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Most everything is sourced here, so can we at least move from NPOV/Factual to NPOV?

--Nealparr ^{(yell at me|for what i've done)} 09:49, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely not. Just because it's "sourced" doesn't make it factual. I've explained how most of the sources cited are unreliable.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 09:53, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

This is exactly what I am talking about. One very simple compromise that doesn't mean anything at all really. There would still be a huge glaring banner warning people that there's a dispute. But you won't even compromise on that. You won't even offer a compromising alternative of your own, like changing it to a NPOV banner and a reliable sources banner. It's not constructive.

--Nealparr ^{(yell at me|for what i've done)} 16:09, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

This is all about his views on parapsychology as a science. If he thought it were a science, there would be no problem. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 09:56, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Not just that but also the way the section "Experimental results" and "Is parapsychology a science?" seem to have a POV tone in support of the results and parapsychology itself. Along with "Status of the field" they blend into one long bias rant that belongs on a blog or personal website and not wikipedia.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 10:24, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

The article has POV issues overall, but the Is it Science section is borderline ridiculous. A couple sentences about those who don't consider it a science, followed by what seems to be a listing of everything that could be found insisting that it is, much of it from fringe publications insisting they aren't fringe. The Mousseau comments should be a sentence or two at most, considering she doesn't look like a reliable source beyond what parapsychologists say in their own defense. The paragraph needs to be balanced in terms of how science overall regards parapsychology. That view should be documented from the point of view of mainstream scientists and publications. If most references are from fringe publications, the article should reflect that and say that most consider it a fringe science. Which sources, if any are mainstream scientific publications calling it a science? I also think this article and Controversy in parapsychology seem like POV forks of each other - why is this section here, while critical arguments are moved off to a separate article?

Right now the section (and to a lesser extent the article overall) give the impression that there are few that dispute it is a science and most consider it one. Is that really the case, and can that be documented using mainstream scientific publications (science saying it's a science, not parapsychology calling itself a science)? --Milo H Minderbinder 15:25, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

For the sake of argument, let's take this article at face value and say it is completely neutral and accurate because there is no dispute. Just in theory. Then someone comes along and says, well, no it's not accurate. They say there are mainstream scientific publications that say it isn't science. They say it is not neutrally worded. But they take no time whatsoever to add these mainstream sources to the article or reword things so that it is neutral.

Look over this talk page. The issue has been discussed ad nauseum. Stop talking about it and edit. Don't just criticize, present something that someone can work with. I haven't come across any mainstream scientific publications that say it isn't science myself. Even the methods in parapsychology are mostly criticized in fringe publications. But if you say there is mainstream sources that say it isn't science, add it to the article, please. Such a source would be greatly welcomed as it would neutralize the article. Everyone keeps saying that there's all these people who say that parapsychology isn't a science, add the sources and make the article better. Heck, take the time to add fringe super-skeptic stuff. I don't know where all that stuff is and it should really come from someone who actually thinks it isn't technically defined as science like I do.

--Nealparr ^{(yell at me|for what i've done)} 16:33, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Here's two cents from a newbie: I think the problem with this section is how it structured. Headlining a section with the title "Is Parapsychology a Science?" is bound to attract attacks from pseudoskeptics time and time again. Our goal is to create a stable article that is objective and sticks to facts. Right now, what we have is the facts along with a lot of interpretation. As far as I am concerned, there is no question that parapsychology is practiced as a science. (It can, however, also be practiced as an art...in the sense of it being a theraputic/medicinal, hermeneutic or martial art). If we want to educate readers about the scientific and academic aspects of parapsychology, then we only need to stick to the facts, such as:

1. The Parapsychological Association has been a member of the American Academy for the Advancement of Science since 1969 (this should be enough for most people). 2. Parapsychology is practiced by mainstream scientists (this is case more than people think, there are no higher degrees for parapsychology, people study parapsychological topics from a variety of backgrounds). 3. Much parapsychological research takes place in university laboratories. 4. The results of parapsychological experiments are published in peer-reviewed journals (and perhaps list what they are and which mainstream journals have published articles on parapsychological topics).

If people read these facts and still want to insist that parapsychology is not scientific, let them. It's not our job to change the minds of dogmatic skeptics. As far as I am concerned we could do away with "Is Parapsychology a Science?" entirely and perhaps restructe it as 'Parapsychology and the Academy' or 'Parapsychology as an Academic Science'. I'm too new here to feel comfortable making such a major edit, but perhaps it's something that we could talk about?--Annalisa Ventola 17:25, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with a fresh perspective, and welcome! Feel free to propose any edit you want to. Most articles on Wikipedia aren't so hotly contested, so usually it's a just-jump-right-in type thing. On hotly contested articles it's probably best to propose an edit on the talk page first or someone will tag or revert it, but every editor is welcomed. Sometimes new editors are best.

--Nealparr ^{(yell at me|for what i've done)} 18:55, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Annalisa, I changed the heading to something closer to what you say. The real argument here is not over the section, or over the section contents; it's over whether Wikipedia as an encyclopedia must accept that parapsychology is in fact a scientific field.

Okay, now I'm confused. If Wikipedia needs to accept that parapsychology is a science, then who is that decides and how do they do so? What happens if 'they' decide that it's not a science? And why wouldn't the PA's affiliation with the AAAS be enough?--Annalisa Ventola 23:08, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't need to "accept" anything, just present an accurate picture. If it's generally accepted/not accepted/accepted by some but not others, that's what wikipedia should say. And whatever is said needs to be backed up with reliable sources. Parapsychological sources are adequate to say that it is considered to be science by parapsychologists. To say it's considered science overall (by the general public/mainstream/etc), we just need sources from mainstream science publications (or even mainstream publications in general). I think the current opening (that the Parapsychological Association says it's science) is a good description based on the sourced info I've seen. --Milo H Minderbinder 23:26, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

So let me see if I've got this straight. It's not enough that almost 50 years ago the AAAS, the world's largest general scientific society, accepted (and continues to support) the Parapsychological Association as a scientific organization? In order to discuss parapsychology as a science, we should also dig up a quote from at least one non-parapsychologist that was published in a mainstream peer-reviewed journal, and find some way to work it into the article? There is also some controversy over whether or not psychology itself is a 'science'. Should psychologists have to jump through the same hoops? Should the psychology article require statements from physicists or chemists acknowledging psychology as a science?--Annalisa Ventola 02:04, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Not only does psychology have to "jump through the same hoops" but every branch of science, and in fact all topics do. If you look at Psychology, you'll see that there is a section about how some scientists question the science of it. But overall, psychology successfully makes it through the hoop, there are plenty of psychological studies published in mainstream scientific journals, and evidence of support from scientists of all branches.

I've seen the section at Psychology. They wrap up the controversy in a mere three paragraphs and the only citation is from a psychology journal. If there is outside evidence of support for the science, they have not cited it. And psychologists generally publish in psychology journals, just as parapsychologists generally publish in parapsychology journals. (By the way, parapsychological studies have made it to the pages of mainstream psychology journals, such the Ganzfield debate on the pages of Psychological Bulletein. I'm new around here, but after I get my feet wet I'll see to it that this is mentioned somewhere.)--Annalisa Ventola _{(Talk | Contribs)} 15:41, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't decide what is scientific and what isn't. The scientific community makes that decision, and we just pass along and document what has been said. Our mission is to reflect known facts, and in the case of controversial (not universally accepted) material, reflect all notable points of view fairly and reflect the level of acceptance. Also keep in mind the concept of burden of proof - it is on those wishing to make a claim, and claims without reliable sources need not be "disproven". --Milo H Minderbinder 13:32, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

My point, which you still haven't addressed, is that scientific community already recognizes parapsychology as a science, and has done so since at least 1969 with the induction of the PA into the AAAS. Since the largest scientific society has recognized the efforts of parapsychologists, I really don't think that much more proof of the scientific status of parapsychology is needed. It really doesn't get much better than that. Perhaps this affiliation needs more explicit discussion at the article page? --Annalisa Ventola _{(Talk | Contribs)} 15:41, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how one organization speaks for the entire scientific community. While there are some scientists and organizations that accept parapsychology as a science, few of the ones cited are outside the realm of parapsychology itself - if wikipedia is going to claim that something is a science, there should be plenty of sources that demonstrate that claim. If there are more sources, particularly mainstream ones, cite them in the article - if parapsychology is truly considered generally to be a science then doing that should be easy. Personally, I think the current wording of the intro describes the situation well. What specifically do you think the article should say instead? --Milo H Minderbinder 16:41, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

The wording will work for now, but I think that the entire article needs to be revamped and I want to make sure that I understand the issues before I step in and make edits. We shouldn't have to play word games when it comes to discussing parapsychology as a science. Nor should we have to interupt the narrative flow of the article just to cite other scientists calling parapsychology a science. I understand that the AAAS is just one organization, but it is the largest scientific society in the world and because of that, it's not unreasonable to suggest that it represents the scientific majority (at least in America). There are other smaller scientific organizations that are sympathetic to the aims of parapsychologists (such as the British Psychological Society) and the American Psychological Association has even published research in the area (see the Varieties of Anomalous Experience). That isn't to say that the entire scientific community finds parapsychology to be a good science or a particulary useful science, but this isn't the point. I can understand requiring extra sources to show the level of support for the field or the significance of its findings, but requiring a list of citations just to allow parapsychology the priviledge of calling itself a science (good or bad), reveals a lack of understanding (at best) or degree of bias (at worse) on the part of individuals calling for such action. --Annalisa Ventola _{(Talk | Contribs)} 18:10, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Annalisa, the problem here is simply that parapsychology draws a lot more flack than psychology. Psychology doesn't challenge people's most basic beliefs about the universe and its laws, as does parapsychology. At least not to the same extent. There are two reasons people don't want to accept that parapsychology is a scientific field. The first one is that this status has been challenged, as it has with psychology. The second, and far more causal, reason is that people feel like parapsychology is the thin end of the wedge for bunk. I personally feel that the opposite is true: the track record of parapsychology is to debunk. However, saying this is actually a scientific field is terribly threatening to some. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 03:01, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Parapsychology doesn't challenge the basic laws of the universe. No more than Leprechauns challenge the basic laws of the universe.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 08:55, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Martin, please assume good faith and don't jump to conclusions about people's motives. "Wanting to accept" or not is irrelevant, we're just reporting the level of acceptance of others, not deciding it ourselves. If you're upset that parapsychology doesn't have a higher level of acceptance, your beef is with the scientific community, not with wikipedia. And I'd encourage you to avoid accusations such as saying people are "threatened", please keep this discussion on topic.

Neal, the new round of edits looks good, thanks for all your hard work on this. --Milo H Minderbinder 13:32, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Milo, I also am merely reporting the literature on the reactions of skeptics. I am not accusing anyone personally. If what you say is true, then I do question whether there is an issue here. Parapsychology has operated as a field of science for many decades, and it is accepted by the AAAS. This should be enough for anyone. The fact that it is not leads me to believe that there is emotional bias involved. After all, no one is trying to say psi is real, or that, for instance, John Edward talks to the dead. Only that there exists a field of science which studies paranormal phenomena, or phenomena which appear to be paranormal. That is all. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 02:52, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Further Reading Clean Up

This list of further reading material is all over the place! Perhaps we could reduce this list to 10-12 introductory or classic texts that would give the interested lay/general reader an introduction to the field? Your thoughts?--Annalisa Ventola 04:59, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Sounds fine to me Annalisa. I'm only attached to the two Radin ones and The Elusive Quarry: A Scientific Appraisal of Psychical Research by Hyman, and probably Parapsychology: A Concise History. It will be nice to have help with the article from someone who isn't ideological pro or con (: That is to say, if you are not a confirmed skeptic or pro-parapsychology, you may be very suited to do this. There aren't many of those around. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 05:30, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Although I'll bet anything someone will delete a link to a blog! And welcome to Wikipedia (: Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 05:37, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Annalisa, I changed the heading to something closer to what you say. The real argument here is not over the section, or over the section contents; it's over whether Wikipedia as an encyclopedia must accept that parapsychology is in fact a scientific field. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 21:39, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Moved section

Since there's already an article about Controversy in Parapsychology that conains sourced info that's largely the flip side of the Is it Science section, I moved the section there so the contrasting views can be read together. I think having one side of an argument in a main article while the other is delegated to a sub article is a POV content fork and violates undue weight in the main article. In general, this article seems very redundant with sections on criticism, skepticism, status of the field (with its own controversy section). Some merging and streamlining would make the article much more workable. --Milo H Minderbinder 17:46, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm all about streamlining, so I don't have an objection to that. But without the section we are back at the earlier argument above.

--Nealparr ^{(yell at me|for what i've done)} 18:49, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I like your recent edits and agree that they make the article more neutral and factually accurate. --Milo H Minderbinder 20:54, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, great edits Nealparr. I moved the section on the scientific status of parapsychology back. This is for several reasons. First, because it is not about controversy. It is about the scientific status of parapsychology. The reason for having it is that people may come to the article with questions already in their minds about whether or not parapsychology is science. Thus it deserves a very prominent place. It is an initial question: how serious is this stuff? It may eventually be moved to its own section, or combined with another. But I prefer to keep it here a while so it can have maximum exposure, and improvement. But it probably needs to stay in the main article, because while it may be controversial, it also includes basic information about parapsychology. If we were to take it out of the main article, then we would have to put that information back in the main article; then we would have to repeat it in the section on the scientific status of parapsychology. It is probably better with a controversial article to seek consensus before bold moves. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 21:12, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm still going through and neutralizing the sections. Just got sidetracked with a phone call. If this section stays in, I'll get to neutralizing it soon. I'm not particularly attached to it, but it's a good addition to the controversy and can be neutral.

--Nealparr ^{(yell at me|for what i've done)} 21:22, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) If people are asking that question (and I agree that many come to this article asking it), there is an argument to be made for material answering that question to be in this article. But that question is answered by not just the Is it Science section, but all the info at Controversy in parapsychology as well. If this article is going to answer that question, it needs to contain the arguments from both sides, not just one. The fix for that is either to move that section as I did, or to bring the info from Controversy in parapsychology here. To have one without the other makes the article biased and is a POV fork. I'd be fine with either solution (or neutralizing the section if Neal is able to do that), but the current state is POV. --Milo H Minderbinder 21:25, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

There is another solution, which is to link it to the Controversy article. The section itself should contain the arguments from both sides, if you or someone can find peer-reviewed or WP:V sources to flesh it out. Till then, let it stand; you can put your disputed tag down on that section if you want, but be patient, because the section is in the process of being written. Also, we are not responsible if the article is long, and has split-off sections. We are not responsible if the reader chooses to read only one page, say, the skeptical view page, and thus comes away with a POV impression. The front page does not have to be NPOV. Rather, it should present the most important information, giving a general overview; then the whole article needs to be NPOV. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 21:47, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

By "front page" do you mean the main article or the intro? --Milo H Minderbinder 22:00, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

The "main article" consists of several pages. The "front page" as in the "first page" of a book, consists of the first page people get when they type in "parapsychology." The front page need only note the different viewpoints, and direct the reader to their full explication, if the full text is too large for the front page. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 23:13, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

This article certainly needs to be NPOV on it's own, it's not acceptable to put one POV on this page and another on a subpage. What would make you think that kind of content forking would be acceptable? If you haven't already, please read WP:POVFORK. --Milo H Minderbinder 23:26, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

That isn't quite what I mean. A skeptic would probably say that because most of the things which one would say about parapsychology, such as its results, the status of the field, the institutions etc. make it look legitimate, that the article is biased, even if those parts are NPOV. But the front page should be considered NPOV when only summaries of the sub-pages are given. For instance, we could leave the whole Status of the field section in the article, and the discussion of its position as a scientific field, because those sections need not be split off to keep the article a manageable size. But then there would be only summaries of other-sub pages, and those pages would provide the total picture. The article as a whole would be NPOV. What I want to avoid is all sorts of pro or con bits being added to the front page, when they should really be in their own sections, in context. It would be better if it were all one page. We can't do that, but we should still treat it as if it is all one page. We simply can't consider the front page alone. This is not content forking. There is a difference between content forking and splitting off sections because the page is too big. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 01:01, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Obviously some pages need to be split for length. But they should be split based on categories of info, not by POV. Selectively picking sections to go to a subpage because they are critical of the topic is content forking. --Milo H Minderbinder 01:15, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you completely. That's one reason I kept only the status of the field section in the front page and split everything else. I usually put new sections in the front page for a while, where they will get most attention, then split them. Eventually, the front page will probably be only small summaries of the sub-articles. And, I never ever split a section off because I didn't like its POV. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 02:02, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality of article...

I appreciate the fact that some of you are taking the initiative to fix the neutrality and factual accuracy problem of this article. I can't continue point to point heated debate here on this talk page much more often because I have a lot of other things to work on. However I will come back every day and overview the article and see if it's still bias and contains factual errors. Then I will explain the problems with it as I spot them. The Tag that is up can stay up because there are still many problems with the article. However I will review it often and remove the tag once I am content it's neutral and factually accurate as an encyclopedia should be. One huge problem is the fact that "Experimental research", "Parapsychology as a scientific discipline", and "Status of the field" should be merged into one section and shortened considerably and relevant POV tone fixed and POV sentences removed. The other problem is the massive amount of quotes all being cherry picked to defend the assertion that it's a science. Work on those things and I'll review it in a day or two.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 09:07, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

It would help if you could take a moment to move the tag to the appropriate sections, or at least allow others to knowing that you can always come back and tag it again in the future.

--Nealparr ^{(yell at me|for what i've done)} 16:14, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

No, It's better at the top. If I were to separate it to each section I dispute then it would be on at least 3 or 4 sections.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 11:56, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Re-organizing, etc.

Obviously I've been making substantial changes. This is mostly for organization and readability. I haven't deleted anything substantial (I think) so far. Much of this information already exists in sub articles or is duplicated in this article. For style and readability, I'll probably be summarizing some of the content that's in there right now. If anyone wants to protect things they absolutely don't want reworded or summarized, please list it here. Thanks! --Nealparr ^{(yell at me|for what i've done)} 20:00, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I haven't read it over yet, but it does look good (: I do think that we need to address this subject in the spirit that parapsychology is just another field of science. The only exception is that the controversies surrounding this field are more notable than other fields of science. But there is no reason to apologize, or to not state the consensus or scientific status of this field. As an example, I would advocate changing "In contemporary parapsychology, the term refers to the study of psi, which parapsychologist feel indicates psychic phenomena" back to "In contemporary parapsychology, the term refers to the study of psi, indicating psychic phenomena." There isn't any real difference in the meaning- that's just what the term indicates (real or no). But it sounds apologetic the way it is, as if "Well, that just happens to the be the opinion of some people, who knows whether they are crazy or not." That's not the way you would put it in another field of science. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 21:15, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

The wording is for neutrality. Parapsychology is unique from other sciences. Where geology can point to a rock and say, "We study that," and even so-called soft sciences like psychology can say, "We study that which is comprehending these words," parapsychologists unfortunately have to define what they are studying for others because it's not something that is readily available to everyone. Everyone can relate to a rock. Everyone can relate to consciousness because we all have that. Not everyone can relate to psychic phenomena.

The word psi is even trickier. Psi is what parapsychologist refer to as a mechanism for psychic phenomena. Again, everyone can relate to gravity. Everyone can relate to magnetism. Psi's not so easy to relate to. It's not a clear cut and dry definition. Because it's not, the definition is completely tied to who's doing the defining.

You have to remember, a lot of people who come to Wikipedia as a reference source may have never had an exposure to parapsychology one way or the other. They aren't just coming here to find out what parapsychologists feel about parapsychology. They're coming here to learn about parapsychology in a general way. If they want absolute specifics on parapsychology, they read the books or surf the web sites.

Certainly parapsychologists don't need to apologize for what they do. The field of parapsychology need not be apologetic to the rest of science either. When writing a study in parapsychology, parapsychologists need not explain anything further than they want to. Unfortunately, this article isn't written by parapsychologists for parapsychology. It's not a parapsychology paper. It's an article meant for the masses contributed to by editors from a variety of fields.

--Nealparr ^{(yell at me|for what i've done)} 22:21, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I see what you're saying. But I don't think that is the correct way of seeing the word "psi". Psi is a neutral term for whatever is being detected or experienced as psychic phenomenon, or the experience itself (look at that page). It is a word which indicates "whatever it is we study." In the case of that sentence, psi does indicate psychic phenomena- and if these do not exist, it still does indicate it. I'm just saying it is no more neutral or different the way you put it- but it does make it vague or even apologetic. Psi "indicates" psychic phenomena whether or not parapsychologists feel that it does, just as "ether" indicates a probably non-existent medium, whether or not physicists feel that it does. The word has a meaning. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 22:37, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Psi definitely has a meaning, but it isn't a neutral meaning.

Psi indicates psychic phenomena, thus:

Psi -> psychic phenomena

Psychic phenomena can be existant or non-existant, so:

Psi -> psychic phenomena = (existant or non-existant)

If psychic phenomena is not existant then:

Psi = nothing

Therefore:

Psi = psychic phenomena as existant

Trust me, I'm a programmer. I deal in these logical equations for a living : )

--Nealparr ^{(yell at me|for what i've done)} 22:50, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Another way of explaining that Psi is non-neutral is to point out the adjective in the statement. Psi indicates "psychic" phenomena. If Psi indicated phenomena (without the adjective), then we've got something neutral to go on. Even if we took the less heavily weighted version and said Psi indicates anomalous phenomena, it's still not neutral because it's implying that the phenomena is anomalous and not normal. That's not as big of a deal as calling it psychic, but hopefully you get my point.

--Nealparr ^{(yell at me|for what i've done)} 22:58, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I think that the term 'anomalous' is generally regarded as neutral. There is little argument that people have experiences that fall outside of the everyday experiences of the general population...no matter the purported causes of such experiences.--Annalisa Ventola _{(Talk | Contribs)} 03:19, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

So, to sum it up, we can say "Psi indicates psychic phenomena" inside parapsychology because parapsychologists are open to the idea of psychic phenomena. Outside the circle we have to say "Psi indicates what parapsychologists feel is psychic phenomena" because outside the circle psychic phenomena hasn't been established. (Sorry for the multiple posts, I was multitasking and didn't get it all down at once).

--Nealparr ^{(yell at me|for what i've done)} 23:16, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

It seems contradictory to insist the article say "indicates psychic phenomena" but then say the word applies even if they don't exist. To be clear, if the "parapsychologists feel..." qualifier goes, it should say something like "indicates possible..." or "indicates psychic phenomena, real or non-existent". Although I don't really get how something can indicate something non-existent. I'd agree with Neal that there's probably not much acceptance beyond parapsychogists that anything indicates psychic phenomena (since its existence hasn't been accepted). --Milo H Minderbinder 23:21, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok, you're right Nealparr (BTW, psi isn't neutral in the sense that it indicates psychic phenomena. It's neutral in the sense that it doesn't say what they are, or indicate a mechanism). Your right because the sentence also says "study of" indicating that there is positively something to be studied. So perhaps just change the word "feel" to "think." How 'bout that?

Wait a minute.... We're saying how the term is used. We're saying what parapsychologists mean by it. We aren't making a statement about it: In contemporary parapsychology, the term refers to the study of psi, indicating psychic phenomena. This says nothing about the existence. Just says what the term refers to when used by parapsychologists.

But, you know, I'm not that stuck on it. Whatever you think, at least for now. I just gave it as an example. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 23:30, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

You can say "think" if you want. Milo H Minderbinder's version sounds good too. --Nealparr ^{(yell at me|for what i've done)} 23:56, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

The term 'psi' was originally proposed because parapsychologists were looking for a neutral term to use in order to discuss anomalous processes and causation. In other words, they were trying to get away from identifying the subject of their study by using culturally connotated words like 'psychic' or implying that anomalous phenomena are paranormal. Of course, over the last few decades, popular culture has appropriated the term and it has taken on a different meaning. Perhaps you would be interested in looking at this brief article for more explanation. In the meantime, I recommend that you use complete the sentence using something to the effect of, "anomalous processes and/or anomalous causation."--Annalisa Ventola _{(Talk | Contribs)} 02:36, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Nealparr, I think you've done an excellent job of reorganizing things in a short amount of time. I wish I had more time to contribute myself, but I just worked a 10 hour day! I took the liberty of editing the brief discussion of psi in the intro. I hope that this is in line with what you and Martinphi were aiming to accomplish. --Annalisa Ventola _{(Talk | Contribs)} 03:47, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

The line looks neutral enough to me. Course in this article you can never tell : ) I think the structure is well put now. There's a lot to do still, but I wanted something that was more readable. With this structure, I think we can lose some of the redundancy, etc. Still a lot of neutrality to create but I have to do some personal stuff first.

--Nealparr ^{(yell at me|for what i've done)} 04:01, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

The "Controversy as a science" sub-section was in the criticism section because that's where the Psychology article had theirs. It makes sense to have it in the criticism section (I was going to reword it at some point) because it's a criticism against parapsychology. If parapsychology is technically a science, several paragraphs aren't really needed to state that. Just a quote from the PA. The only people who think it is a big deal are the critics, so a few paragraphs about what the critics have to say and a short response from parapsychologists (again, like the psychology page) is all that is needed. This has to do with the apologetics thing editors have pointed out. If it's really a science, and the people who think it isn't are the critics, you don't have to apologize for it in the main part of the article. You let the critics say what they want in a special section.

The "Status of the field" sub-section was in the history section because we were showing the arc to the present day. It starts with really old research, moving into modern research, a bit about the skeptics, and then contemporary parapsychology. Looking at other science articles, I don't see any (brief look around) that have a "Status of the field" section outside a history section. I think the reason for this is because science is a process and not really a product. We show the evolution of the field and how it's coming along. An independent section feels like, "OK, we're all done. Here's the results." Of course it doesn't really say that, that's just how it feels.

Am I tied to any of this? No, not at all. Actually, I wanted to apologize. Looking over my list of actual real-world work I have, I realize I don't really have time to go through this entire article and fix it up like I started out to do. If I get the time, I'll make minor edits where I can, but I can't take on the major work needed. The page is currently lit up like a Christmas tree with dispute tags and I can't take the time to address each passionate argument.

--Nealparr ^{(yell at me|for what i've done)} 07:45, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Whatever you want is fine with me. We do need some of the information which I put in the "As a science" section near the front, as it covers basic description of the field. I mainly combined it with the Status section because I though it was part of the status, and because I though it would be less controversial there than in its own section, where it would look to critics like an argument. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 20:07, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

It is an argument. But it's an argument from the critics, not from the parapsychologists. Parapsychologists don't have to present their work as scientific. They just present their work and it's either science or its not.

At some point, this article has to cope with the fact that it's not a debate. It's two opposing views. One view is stated. Then the other view is stated. One presents, the other critiques. It's not a present, critique, rebuttal, present again, critique again, rebuttal again, and so on. Parapsychology presents. Critics state their objections. Article done. That's how the science articles are written. It'd be easier if it were a religion article because they don't have criticism sections.

After this basic format is set up, then we get to style. Stylistically, it is an encyclopedia, not a research paper. Research papers are stocked full of past experiments, data from current experiments, quotes, detailed work, and so on. Encyclopedia's speak in abstract only getting specific on key information. This is for comprehension and accessibility to the general public. Like instead of listing all the experiments ever done in parapsychology, an encyclopedic article would say something to the effect that there is a large body of work and then show the one or two that is most representative of the entire body. Where research papers are exhaustive, encyclopedic articles cover the basic this is what you need to know. Less is more.

Then we get to neutrality. Neutrality is achieved 1) by giving equal weight to the notable views (there's at least two notable views here) and 2) by not making hard stance definitive statements, or if you do, attribute it to someone in the position to be discredited. For Wikipedia purposes, this is considered to be one of the most important things, but really it can't be achieved unless the other points above are achieved first. That is, the article must be structured in a way where neutrality can be achieved and it must be written in the abstract to specific style so that specific statements can be attributed to specific people.

That's what this article needs, I believe. I'm not going to do it, but that's what needs to be done. I tried to but realized I've got other things to do and there's too many cooks in the kitchen so to speak. I'm not upset about it or anything, but I realized the futility when I put up a tag saying I'm working on it, hold off on substantial changes, and before I was a 1/3 done it was already switched all around again : ) I don't have the time to work in that way. But please, take my advice and look at it from the things I pointed out above, and take a look at some of the other major Wikipedia articles dealing with fields of science, belief systems, and so on. It's a unique science to be sure, but the article itself should have the same feel as the other articles.

--Nealparr ^{(yell at me|for what i've done)} 20:46, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Excellent summary of the state of this article. I especially agree that the information about the field itself serve as an "argument" that it is a science, and that it's superfluous to devote much space to quotes from those in the field insisting that it's a science. There's no question that they believe it's a science. I also agree that there's unnecessary detail on things like individual experiments that just read like a laundry list and don't really help the general reader - the same problem that Electronic voice phenomenon has. --Milo H Minderbinder 21:00, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Personal story: When I was nine years old, I read the "Psychic Voyages" volume of Time Life's Mysteries of the Unknown series. It was easily accessible to a nine year old and touched upon the work of parapsychologists but not in a stuffy way. After reading it, I remember thinking that one day it might be cool to be a parapsychologist. As I got older, I realized that other lines of work are more suited to paying the bills : ) but my point is that all manner of people looking for background on parapsychology might come here and if it's written with that key idea in mind, it can't be anything other than a good article.

--Nealparr ^{(yell at me|for what i've done)} 21:00, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, well I wish you had the time, because you seem to be the only one whom both sides trust to do it. I didn't interpret your tag the way you said. If you want to just revert it, why don't you? I'm not going to be offended, and we can put Annalisa's edits back in. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 22:21, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Still don't have the time : ) Maybe this weekend if it hasn't made any progress I can take another tackle at it. It doesn't have to be reverted. I'll start over with whatever's up there at the time. I don't really have that many academic sources to go off anyway, so all my edits are a rewording of what other people put up.

--Nealparr ^{(yell at me|for what i've done)} 22:32, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Scientific field

On another note. I just have to keep coming back to it, the more I think on it. Where a page deals with a topic which is covered by a scientific field, Wikipedia presents primarily the scientific consensus of that field. No apology, and it is presented in an NPOV way as the consensus of the field. This page should not be any different. We need to give more space to the controversy, but only because it is more notable. But the page should not be presented from the perspective of controversy, and it should be presented from the point of view of the scientific consensus of the field. I know that this is going to bring all sorts of criticism, but I believe those are the rules and I believe that this is what we are required to do. It is a first principle for constructing the page. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 00:07, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

When you're talking about scientific consensus, consensus of the field is science overall, not just the subgroup. If there's a consensus of parapsychologists, it should be presented as a consensus of parapsychologists, not a consensus of science, or worse, just presented as "fact". --Milo H Minderbinder 00:20, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

For stability reasons, I don't think the article can take that approach. It would require constant maintenance and never-ending dispute resolvements. That guideline, I feel, is for bigger sciences. Like in biology, the consensus is evolution over creationism. In archaeology the pyramids are Egyptian tombs instead of alien spaceports. Things like that. Trying to maintain the idea of parapsychological consensus over the controversy (which is the bigger story) is something I can't do. So let me know and I'll come back to it if you want an attributed neutrality.

--Nealparr ^{(yell at me|for what i've done)} 00:47, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

You're right Milo. A consensus of scientists in the scientific field of parapsychology. Only that. Wikipedia follows the scientific consensus in the field. We don't ask psychologists what the conditions are inside a neutron star. We really don't care what they have to say. And of course, we would present the viewpoints of the critics of parapsychology, and more so than with other articles on science. I have absolutely no desire not to accurately present what the critics have to say.

Even if I were pushing parapsychology, I still would not try to censor the critics, because that would only detract from my case- the reader would be able to tell it was a whitewash.

"For stability reasons, I don't think the article can take that approach. It would require constant maintenance and never-ending dispute resolvements." Nealparr, that is why I'm talking about an ArbCom decision. I want you to continue with what you are doing. It is great to get it stable for now with this definition of NPOV. In fact, I doubt there will be much that is materially different when we get it straightened out. I wrote everything I wrote from the perspective I would think the article would eventually have anyway. So you know exactly how I would think it should be presented. There are only a few tweaks I'd make different, like calling it a scientific field to begin with, and possibly saying directly which types of psi scientists in the field think are real. So keep doing what you're doing, OK? Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 01:15, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

As with the EVP article, you're misunderstanding WP policy and pushing POV again. If you really think there's WP policy that says all that is required to present something as fact is agreement within a niche and not consensus of science in general, show me that policy. Until you do, you're just ignoring policy to favor your own bias. If you really want to take this to ArbCom, go for it. --Milo H Minderbinder 02:01, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

A) I don't want to present anything as fact.

B) There is no such thing as "consensus of science in general." Science is composed of fields. There is no question of a niche here.

And there is no meaning to "scientific consensus" if you mean agreement among all scientists. A "scientist" is someone who is a specialist in a particular field of science. When a Wikipedia article speaks about a particular field of science, it does not consult the opinions of all scientists. It consults the consensus of scientists in the field. To say otherwise is to completely misunderstand how science works, and to completely misunderstand Wikipedia policy on the subject. I am not pushing POV, but if you think that the "general vote" of scientists is relevant- then you are. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 02:33, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

, Martin, First post a link to the policy where it says you only present in the article what the "Consensus in the field" is. Secondly, You can't just go straight to ArbCom without going through the other dispute resolutions first. Comment and then Mediation.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 11:59, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't really understand what specifically Martin wants to say in the article. The consensus of parapsychologists should be presented as the consensus of parapsychologists. Whether ArbCom declared parapsychology to be a science would have no effect on that. The article seems to be doing that already in many areas (particularly under Neal's recent edits). Aside from the intro saying "Parapsychology is a science", what other changes would you like to see if the article were to be written from the point of view of the consensus of parapsychologists? A specific example of a proposed change or changes would be very illustrative - right now you're just talking in abstractions, which isn't very helpful. --Milo H Minderbinder 13:53, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

The problem with this article is that it's simply too long and presents too much irrelevant information regarding parapsychology. Most of the irrelevant information is used in a POV tone to argue the legitimacy of parapsychology. The fact is there is no wikipedia policy that says you must "present the consensus of those in the field". One such example is the article on String theory. I hate to compare an illegitimate field like parapsychology to String theory but the fact is, in the article on string theory they don't present the "consensus of the field". They present the consensus of science and physics as a whole putting the article in a context of science and physics as a whole not in the context of just the field of string theory. Obviously string theory is on a totally different level of legitimacy than "parapsychology" but this serves an example contrary to what Martin is asserting. Nowhere on wikipedia does it state we must "give the consensus only of the specific field being mentioned". Sorry Martin. But you need to re-read WP:NPOV. You also need to brush up on basic science. There is such a thing as the "Scientific community" where scientists of ALL fields have a say on other fields. For instance many biologists or physicists might have a lot to say about the possibility of "psi". Moreover Parapsychology itself refutes your assertions. Most people who do research into "psi" are actually scientists of other fields such as physicistis or statisticians. 99% of the people who study "psi" etc don't actually have any accredation in "parapsychology". Wikidudeman ^(talk) 14:52, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll post a link later. I don't want to say much in the article which is not already there. The difference would be that it is described as a scientific field. So there would be a slight change in the first sentence, "The scientific study of...". That, and possibly citing the consensus of parapsychologists. That is all. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 20:00, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Could you be more specific on "citing the consensus of parapsychologists"? What sort of statements specifically? --Milo H Minderbinder 20:02, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

You didn't address what I said Martin.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 12:05, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Are you willing to clarify on this, Martin? --Milo H Minderbinder 13:56, 2 March 2007 (UTC)