Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Parapsychology
|WikiProject Parapsychology||(Rated NA-class)|
Request for input in discussion forum
Given the closely linked subjects of the various religion, mythology, and philosophy groups, it seems to me that we might benefit from having some sort of regular topical discussion forum to discuss the relevant content. I have put together the beginnings of an outline for such discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Religion/2011 meeting, and would very much appreciate the input of any interested editors. I am thinking that it might run over two months, the first of which would be to bring forward and discuss the current state of the content, and the second for perhaps some more focused discussion on what, if any, specific efforts might be taken in the near future. Any and all input is more than welcome. John Carter (talk)
Automated message by Project Messenger Bot from John Carter at 15:44, 5 April 2011
Notice of RfC: Rupert Sheldrake
Comment on the WikiProject X proposal
Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
WikiProject X is live!
You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!
Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.
Ganzfeld experiment article edits
Recently, I have dealt with the existing ganzfeld research in some detail and I find the Wikipedia article on it quite one-sided. I plan to do some edits to it, and would like to invite you all to an open discussion about it, so we can improve the article. I will discuss the changes I make here, and I will appreciate your feedback.
PS. I am new to Wikipedia, so I will welcome any suggestions.
- Change number 1 - Bem and Honorton autoganzfeld experiments protocol quality claim
- – Before my edit, the article stated: "In 1990 Honorton et al. published the results of 11 autoganzfeld experiments they claimed met the standards specified by Hyman and Honorton (1986)."
- – I find this a bit misleading, because the experimental protocol was reviewed by many researchers, including sceptics and all agreed with its security. It is thus not only a claim by Bem and Honorton. (The question if the controls were in fact kept is discussed later in the criticism of the study.)
- – Thus the new text is: "In 1990 Honorton et al. published the results of 11 autoganzfeld experiments they claimed met the standards specified by Hyman and Honorton (1986). Bem and Honorton noted that "The experimental protocol was examined by several dozen parapsychologists and behavioral researchers from other fields, including well-known critics of parapsychology. Many have participated as subjects or observers. All have expressed satisfaction with the handling of security issues and controls.""
- – I also added the actual hit rate results of the 11 experiments.
- Change number 2 - Hyman's critique of Bem and Honorton (1994)
- – I find this section a bit chaotic. First, Bem and Honorton's experiments are mentioned, then Hyman's critique, Bem and Honorton again, then a newer meta-analysis of 30 studies by Milton and Wiseman, then a repeated statement of Bem and Honorton that their experiments had good security measures, and Hyman's critique again.
- – I thus rearranged the paragraphs so that they are consistent in time and narrative, and deleted the repetitive statements. I reformulated Hyman's criticism based on his 1994 comment with a more clear delineation of his main points. (I added one important point showing the inconsistency of Bem and Honorton's experiments with older ganzfeld studies).
- "Because the experimental protocol was reviewed by many researchers, including sceptics and all agreed with its security", this is basically unsupported nonsense and undue weight to a fringe view from Bem and Honorton (two psi believers). Scientists and Skeptics such as David Marks, Terence Hines, Nicholas Humphrey, Richard Wiseman etc have looked at the experimental protocol and pointed out sensory leakage problems. List of skeptics please who agree with those experiments and sources for this claim? None exist.
- "The experimental protocol was examined by several dozen parapsychologists and behavioral researchers from other fields, including well-known critics of parapsychology. Many have participated as subjects or observers All have expressed satisfaction with the handling of security issues and controls." Again this is seriously undue. This is a fringe claim and again just nonsense. I do not know of a single skeptic who is happy with those experiments, it is possible to cite about six books and papers that found errors in those experiments. If you believe there is critics of parapsychology supporting those experiments then cite a source other than fringe proponents and psi believers such as Bem and Honorton. Skeptic5757 (talk) 22:13, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi, Skeptic5757, thanks for the feedback.
- 1. I agree with deleting the claim by Bem and Honorton.
- 2. I linked Dean Radin's page because it was the only place where I found Hyman's paper available online.
- 3. What specifically about my edits "looks like original research"? You have reverted all my edits, including:
- * the overall hit rate of Bem and Honorton's (1994) 11 experiments
- * Hyman's critique of the inconsistency in Bem and Honorton's (1994) experiments - static targets had an overall insignificant rate, only dynamic targets had significant rate (and their hit rates included some patterns indicating sensory leakage)
- * Hyman's claim that the Bem and Honorton experiments satisfy most, but not all of the "stringent standards" of the 1986 communiqué (see Hyman, 1994, p. 19)
- How do these edits constitute original research? They are taken directly from the articles I cite.
Update: as no reply was posted within a week, I reverted Skeptic5757's edit. I deleted the above mentioned claim by Bem and Honorton.
- It would probably be more appropriate to talk about this on Talk:Ganzfeld experiment, so the other people who are now editing that article don't have to go digging to find this discussion here. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 07:35, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
This project now has article alerts
See here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Parapsychology/Article alerts. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 11:56, 22 April 2015 (UTC)