Talk:Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research Lab/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Out of sheer curiousity

Out of sheer curiousity, why is PEAR considered to be a genuine science and engineering department at Princeton, a supposidely prestigeous university? -Love, Hnoj.

  • Well there is no question that Princeton is one of the top rated schools in the world and the research that pear does has been subject to vastly more rigorous examination over the last 20 or so years than most other studies, research, labs, etc. I posted an interesting article from wired that you should check out here. Also if you get a chance it's worth reading bill Bryson's Brief History of Nearly Everything TitaniumDreads 06:50, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Sorry, but "vastly more rigorous examination over the last 20 or so years than most other studies, research, labs" doesn't follow their research methods. Princeton *is* a top rated school, which makes this department all the more confusing.
As you can see, boasting is an important part of the "scientific argumentation" in parapsychology. Since the line of reasoning in parapsychology is "we couldn't find a natural explanation, so there probably is no natural explanation", parapsychologists need to create the impression in public that they are so immensely smart and knowledgeable that this line of reasoning is justified. It doesn't convince me. Nobody is smart enough to justify that. Especially not people who can't see that this reasoning is fallacious. --Hob Gadling 12:27, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
The reasoning appears to be sound, what I find suspect is the DATA! Have a look at http://www.princeton.edu/~pear/correlations.pdf and then tell me again what your objection is? I have to assume that the data described by this paper must be erroneous or simply faked. Either that or the world is a whole lot weirder than I thought (it's pretty weird as it is). --David Battle 02:11, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
The reasoning is not sound at all. If "we couldn't find a natural explanation, so there probably is no natural explanation" were allowed, this would lead to:
  • stupid researchers being more successful than smart ones,
  • ignorant researchers being more successful than knowledgeable ones,
  • unmotivated researchers being more successful than motivated ones.
The reason: Stupidity, ignorance, and lack of motivation can prevent scientists from finding an explanation. If not finding an explanation can be used as evidence, scientists who have those properties will be more successful. Therefore, disciplines where this reasoning is allowed will accumulate that type of scientist. And indeed, what I have seen of parapsychologists... well, let me just stress that they are not very motivated when it comes to trying to find a natural explanation. Whenever people suggest one, some parapsychologists get angry or even claim that doubting their results (i.e. not accepting their infallibility in finding explanations) is unscientific.
Regarding the data: Looks like a systematic error to me - and as I said, parapsychologists lack motivation to find those. --Hob Gadling 14:38, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
Ok, you misunderstand me. I am not suggesting that it is sound reasoning to say that "if we can't find an explanation there must not be one". What I am saying is that if they are really observing what they claim to be observing (count are higher when people are trying to "think" them higher, and lower when people are trying to "think" them lower), how can that be explained by systematic error? If there was some drift, for example, why should the drift be aligned with the desires of the "operator"? I am more inclined to believe that the data is simply being faked. It is hard to see how any kind of systematic error could consistently agree with the operator's desires. --David Battle 22:58, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
I think there are always systematic errors, some smaller, some bigger. (That can be a hole in the setup, for example the boss walking to and fro between the sender room and the receptor room in a telepathy experiment and asking the receptor leading questions now and then. This will generate a small effect.) Scientists normally expect some specific result. Systematic errors are detected and removed when the result differs from the expectation. But in parapsychology, expecting results is pooh-poohed - you have to accept what you find. Therefore, systematic errors are not detected (or only when skeptics who expect a null result look at the experiments). Also, parapsychologists often say really naive things showing that they are not aware of gaping holes in their setup. Purposely faking data is not necessary. --Hob Gadling 15:01, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
The answer is money. Lots of dumb rich folks donated lots of money for dumb shit like this. Stuff like this (and worse) tends to happen in private universities. But OTOH, PEAR is a fucking joke and nobody takes them seriously. Go to Princeton's physics department and ask them about it. It's a black eye for princeton, but not as bad as being Kansas. Worse things have happened in universities, like libraries and scholarships being named after racist motherfuckers in Georgia (CHF 15:50:47, 2005-08-11 (UTC))

I added a section referencing the controversy of their findings, as the entry looked like a standard PR piece and didn't go very much into their research. If anyone could go more in-depth as to the scope of their research, that would be wonderful :)

Stub article

I tagged this article with a parapsychology stub tag because, although it has a lot of text, there are only three sentences about the actual subject. All the rest are credits, which frankly look more like self-promotion and PBS-like kudos to financial supporters. I suspect that the choice of "parapsychology" will not sit well with PEAR supporters, because PEAR specifically claims not to be investigating paranormal behavior. But in the interest of calling a duck a duck, I suggest that this the most approrpriate category for the following reasons:

  1. The studies PEAR executes are designed to detect the use of human consciousness as a medium either to communicate information or to affect objects or electronics, deliberately ruling out the medium of either physical contact or electronic communication. These phenomena are, by definition, telepathy and psychokinesis, which are, again by definition, paranormal activities. This doesn't rule out the possibility that a natural explanation will be found, but until the medium for such anomalies is discovered, it falls into the paranormal category.
  2. The lab's title itself includes the phrase "engineering anomalies", a clear acknowledgement that they investigate phenomena that are anomalous to engineering; i.e., have no current scientific explanation. (All PEAR reports is statistical anomalies; it doesn't become science until theories are proposed, tested both for truth and falsity, and reproduced by other scientists.)

To be a non-stub article, I would suggest that there needs to be some detail about what actual tests and analyses PEAR has performed, as well as peer reviews of such tests (and not just the favorable ones). This would provide a balanced article discussing a prominent organization. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 08:40, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

NPOV

Someone should check facts in detail, grey the redlinks to non-notable persons, and generally check for WP:NPOV and WP:VAIN problems. ---CH 00:41, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Ditto that. http://skepdic.com/pear.html seems to indicate that the PEAR thing isn't as cut-and-dried as it this article makes it seem to be. I suggest putting a POV tag on this article because it seems like a lot of the importance of this project's results depends on the fine details of the statistical analysis. Statistics can be used to propagate lies too. But I'm not sure I'm perfectly neutral myself, so I have refrained from putting a POV tag on this article myself. Peter 03:51, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I added the NPOV tag. Why does this have a tone implying this is ordinary, credible, uncontested science? Why is there no criticism section? Why nothing about the highly unusual circumstances of the project, or general reaction from the scientific and/or Princeton community? I'm going to watch this article, and hopefully help fix it over the next few days. Mycroft7 05:48, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't the disclaimer take care of any NPOV worries? There should be a criticism section, but that doesn't mean that what is there is POV. Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 07:52, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, insisting that there is a "Criticisms" section in every article is kinda POV in and of its own right, and I do believe that the unambiguous disclaimer in the opening paragraph promotes a level of NPOV that is absent in 99% of Wikipedia articles. On a second note, the PEAR Lab (among other things) is notable as it is (er... I should say "was" as it just closed down) one of the only paralabs sponsored by a major university and has a large body of published research in reputable journals. If someone can find published criticism, by all means include it, but let's not make a section until there's something to fill it with. :-) אמר Steve Caruso (desk/AMA) • Give Back Our Membership! 03:07, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Since much criticism has been made of PEAR (that is arguably PEARs basis for relevance), its inclusion is totally relevant. Also this article, as well as Robert Jahn's page, claims that results were "statistically significant", which is a contentious claim when dealing with < 1% statistical variance, even without going into the accusations of methodological flaws, that claim is biased. The call for references would be totally appropriate, if the rest of the article had any, but to tell one side of the story without ref, and then say we should not state the other (arguably more relevant and common) perspective is not NPOV. Dgandhi360 (talk) 18:57, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

This article still has real NPOV issues. Titanium Dragon (talk) 21:53, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. I'll look into it, need to do more research before I tackle.Sanitycult (talk) 06:52, 27 July 2009 (UTC)


Hmmm... These results have important philosophical implications, if they are true. So it is important that the discussion must be settled, into this page and abroad:

-if the PEAR was an "embarassment to science" and a possible mistake, see fraud, why did they remained so long into the Princeton University without being fired? There must be some peer control in Princeton, first in line to nab any bad work even before it is known outdoors, and remove any credit or support to it with some kind of official statement. Nothing such happened in THIS instance, so it must be because they found nothing bad... accusing the PEAR lab of mistake (or fraud) is equivalent to accusing Princeton itself of being lax.

-values of 1% indicated into this discussion does not make sense. The accuracy of a statistical result depends on the number of drawings. Political polls generally use about 1000 persons panels, which give a (theoretical) accuracy of about 1%. In the case of the PEAR experiments, drawings were tens of millions, or more, which give a much higher accuracy, especially when meta-studies agglomerate still much more data. The claim of PEAR is that their results are valid because this higher accuracy allowed them to highlight such weak deviations from pure random, impossible to observe with smaller experiments.

-in more, the effects detected much varied from a person to another (while remaining somewhat consistent for each person), and they were often found opposite of what was intended. My personnal opinion is that larger than expected variance would be a better indicator than just deviations from average.

-What I would like to see, if PEAR is false, is not comments like "embarassment to science" or other ideological/despising words, but clear indication of where the flaw is, into the method for gathering data, or into the calculus used to highlight the statistical deviations. And this possible flaw should also explain why the results appeared for analog random generators, and not for pseudo-random generators, while both were processed into the same way.

Persons who think the PEAR experiment is not valid should clearly reply to these questions, and provide checkable sources on this.

Richard Trigaux, France. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.129.178.156 (talk) 06:38, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


Amen! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.146.87.105 (talk) 20:51, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Remote perception

Something about the results from these experiments would be good. 93.96.236.8 (talk) 13:59, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Notability tag

I just added a few sources that should be enough to pull the Notability tag. They include two more sources on PEAR's closing, a decently in-depth treatment from 2003, and several pages in Robert Park's new book. Agree/disagree? - 2/0 (cont.) 15:48, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. Tags removed (feel free to restore). Verbal chat 17:02, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Merge discussion

Certain comments on Global Consciousness Project made me suspect that there was a separate page for PEAR. As the first mentioned study is a direct continuation of the PEAR experiment after Princeton finally shut the PEAR experiment down they would be more appropriate merged into a single article. Neither article is overly long. I am not advocating removal of reliably sourced material from either article, just a merge.Simonm223 (talk) 15:51, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Can always be spun off again if it gets too much (unlikely). Verbal chat 16:09, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Not a valid reason/rationale for a merge. There is no consensus over GCP's being PEAR's a direct continuation. As Wikipedia:Merging clearly states "the topics are discrete subjects and deserve their own articles even though they may be short". Even if GCP was a direct continuation of PEAR, since the topics are discrete the merge would be controversial. Consider also ongoing ANI discussion about Global Consciousness Project. Logos5557 (talk) 16:35, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Another point: How many different kinds of experiments were conducted in PEAR? Logos5557 (talk) 16:37, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
The fact that you have made a complaint at WP:ANI doesn't mean I can't propose a merge of two topics that should be covered on the same article. If consensus supports the merge it will be merged. If consensus does not it will not be. Simonm223 (talk) 17:03, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
It's sad that you see "incident reporting" as "complaining". For the ANI process to progress and to culminate healthily, I believe we should slow down this merge proposal/discussion. Logos5557 (talk) 17:22, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Slow down? Who precisely is rushing? I made a proposal. One person, excluding me, supports it, one person opposes it. This is not consensus either way. We will wait until there is consensus one way or the other before doing anything at all. However your WP:ANI complaint (as what you did was not a dry "incident report" but was a complaint) has no bearing one way or the other. Simonm223 (talk) 17:40, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose merge. Both projects are independently notable, and while GCP is in a sense a continuation of PEAR, the projects are also distinct. Merging is unnecessary, and risks conflating the two projects. Fences&Windows 19:27, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose. PEAR has a distinct and long history surrounding the work of Robert Jahn. Independent work not involving Jahn, and not conducted at this laboratory, is not relevant to this article. --Nealparr (talk to me) 01:40, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Withdrawn It is clear consensus does not support this merge and so I withdraw the proposal. Simonm223 (talk) 21:08, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

"Humanists" alongside various scientists in lead

I looked at the reference quickly, I did not see any reference to Humanists being officially part of this research. Humanists are not scientists, so there is no reasonable justification to place them along psychologist, engineer, etc, as a source of scientific research.--Tallard (talk) 21:33, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Agree, change made. This page is filled with NPOV from bias sources against the idea. Antenarrative (talk) 09:30, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Needs more balance and less bias

In its current state, this entry is unacceptably biased. As has been noted before, there is too much reliance on citations of individuals closely linked to PEAR lab. We should be able to identify other external reviews and publications in order to achieve a more balanced description. In addition, much of the content drifts from the actual lab history and activities into the discussions of specific protocols and theories - see the sections Remote Perception and Theoretical models. Furthermore, the edit history suggests that the current content has repeated been reinstated by a single contributor, despite other editors' attempts to refine the details. Finally, I'm adding 'cite needed' to several unsubstantiated statements in the lead paragraph. jxm (talk) 04:41, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

In an effort to reduce the excessive bias in this page, I've transferred the Theoretical Models material to Robert G. Jahn, since all the related citations are linked directly to his work anyway. It's a first step towards achieving a bit better balance here. jxm (talk) 00:37, 11 August 2013 (UTC)


Details of Failed Replication, etc

In researching this briefly as it's circulating on Facebook I found this: http://www.csicop.org/si/show/pear_proposition_fact_or_fallacy/

I think it's likely that the sources listed in this article would be useful, however I lack the technical expertise to truly make a meaningful assessment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mystic eye (talk • contribs) 16:34, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Replication

I read on Wired News that the results were replicated once but failed to be replicated any other times. The one time they were replicated it was by somebody associated with PEAR. This seems very suspious. I have to put this under "cool if true catagory" along with cold fusion. I really doubt this is true still, we should keep an open mind, just because something does not fit in with our current worldview doesnot mean it isn't true, that leads to scietific stagnation like in the dark ages. Anyways, if this is true, why do my tanks always get beat by spearmen when playing Civilization 3?

03:57, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Spin-offs

The presence of commercial links in the spin-offs section has been contested. The entire section was removed. I have restored the section but removed the direct commercial links and added a reference. Restoration was on the grounds that similar pages such as Mit Media Lab contain spin-offs sections. References point to a PEAR press release citing association with the spin-offs.

03:58, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Removed bias source and biasing comment

I removed this: Some academics have called into question the PEAR data, suggesting that the PEAR methodologies were flawed and questioning their interpretation of the collected data.[1] We can do better than "skepdic". We can also do better than to place an unsubstantiated statement that assassinates the work's character in the opening paragraph. Finally, no where do "academics" or even the writer of the snark-peace cited say that the methodologies were flawed; they simply argue that they don't like statistical significance and meta-analysis. This citation dismisses the basis of a great deal of rigorous empirical inquiry simply because it doesn't like the conclusions drawn; is not notable, does not say what the statement is citing it for, and is used in support of a criticism that doesn't belong in the top of the article. Antenarrative (talk) 09:30, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

  1. ^ Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research at The Skeptic's Dictionary

Reflist added. - - MrBill3 (talk) 04:41, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Nelson's post PEAR project

I removed the following content:

Roger D. Nelson, who acted as PEAR’s operations coordinator, continued his parapsychological activities as the director of the Global Consciousness Project.[1]

Ref

  1. ^ http://noosphere.princeton.edu/


How relevant to the subject of the lab is this? The GCP is not a notable project (no major results, no substantial coverage) how does the post PEAR project of one of it's members relate to PEAR itself? IF people from PEAR had gone on to establish major projects or have a notable impact it might relate, but one person with a very minor project? The source is self published and primary. Is there any reliable source that has found this important enough to report on it? If not it doesn't belong. - - MrBill3 (talk) 04:29, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Feel free to keep that content out of the article. I added it mainly so that I wouldn’t completely remove Nelson from the article when I deleted the “Staff” section. I figured that if I outright removed Nelson from PEAR then someone would come along and ask “why the hell did you remove Nelson? He’s a notable individual! He even has his own Wikipedia page!” So to avoid a potential conflict I incorporated Nelson into the introduction. 76.107.171.90 (talk) 10:10, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Sept 25th changes

I think that some plausibly useful information may have been lost in the recent flurry of edits. For example, the early funding by James S. McDonnell and Laurance Rockefeller seems pertinent, albeit possibly driven by their oddball interests in UFOs and the occult. Also, we should probably mention that Jahn - despite his rather wacky ideas - is indeed a former dean of engineering and aerospace prof. Along the way, we also lost the criticism by skeptic and physicist Robert L. Park. Finally, I'm concerned about the current phrase ".....purporting to examine telekinesis and remote viewing". I think it would be more accurate to state that the lab undertook studies to examine these purported phenomena, as well as precognition apparently. They weren't misrepresenting (purporting, as it were) what they were studying, which is how it reads at present. With consensus, I'll make these minor fixes. Thoughts? jxm (talk) 01:15, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Sounds pretty reasonable to me. The recent flurry of edits reflects a lack of understanding of NPOV (and edit warring) and some attempts at correction. Thanks for catching what got lost. The change of position of purporting seems appropriate. The early funding if factual and sourced can go back as can Park's criticism. Jahn's credentials if considered relevant in a discussion of PEAR by a source, otherwise seems like OR, not related. If a source doesn't find Jahn's credentials of significance in writing on PEAR why should WP? I'm flexible on this based on further rationale and input from other editors. - - MrBill3 (talk) 11:38, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Jxm, I inserted the phrase “purporting to examine” back in January. I believe it is the most appropriate phrasing because:
1. PEAR only claims to be examining psi, legitimate scientists don’t think that there is any psi to examine.
2. Even if telekinesis were real, PEAR’s experiments wouldn’t have proven its existence anyway because of their methodological flaws.
3. The reliable sources seem to be suggesting (though not outright stating) that PEAR was probably involved in deliberate fraud. The fact that one of PEAR’s own staff was an experimental subject who had a significant effect on their results coupled with the fact that PEAR’s results are not reproducible seems to have created some suspicion.
While I’m not proposing that we add PEAR to one of Wikipedia’s lists of hoaxes, I don’t think that it would be appropriate to use any language that might give the reader the wrong impression. The mainstream seems to regard PEAR not as honest but misguided bunglers, but rather as malicious pseudoscientists who started at their conclusion and worked backwards. We should avoid asserting that PEAR actually studied telekinesis in Wikipedia’s voice. 76.107.171.90 (talk) 18:04, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Tnx for the feedback; here are a couple of quick follow-up comments. The 2007 NYT report here, which we already cite, presents Jahn's non-psi credentials in jet propulsion, etc. to provide background/context to the story. The McDonnell and Rockefeller sources of funding are also documented there, so I believe that we can easily fix those items. Regarding quoting the Park criticism, a prior edit by Simonm223 already noted that there's no need to attribute an already widely-held view, so we can prob forget about that one.
As for the purporting issue, I feel we should first try to identify a reliable source that there was really a malicious pseudoscience intent here; this is a WP:BLP topic after all. Most other psi articles in WP seem content with using an honest-but-misguided-bunglers characterization of those involved. I don't think we're dealing with more obviously deceptive showmanship and fraudulent trickery here, unlike Uri Geller or João de Deus (medium), for example. Other comments? jxm (talk) 21:37, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
The article needs to be expanded, I have good references (Victor Stenger) etc. I will attempt this shortly. Goblin Face (talk) 10:56, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
I've reworked the intro a little, to fix some of the items raised here. I've also dropped purporting again, as it seems to be in conflict with WP:SCAREQUOTES. As noted above, we can always add it back in once we find a reliable source for the claim of malicious pseudoscience intent. jxm (talk) 00:41, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
I don't think we need puffery/weasel on the linked names of the early sponsors "pioneer" etc. I think the removal of the NYT ref is not appropriate and that some of the phrasing is not as clear as it could be but the overall changes seem a reasonable step, subject to revision (as opposed to reversion) by other editors. I look forward to see what GoblinFace has to add as they have shown to be solid at research and prose composition. - - MrBill3 (talk) 02:23, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
i'm kinda surprised by the latest reversion, as I understood from the notes above that these changes seemed reasonable. The word pioneer comes from the actual McDonnell WP entry; using some alternate non-puffery description is fine with me. Also, to be clear, there's no intent to legitimize the pseudoscience here; we're just documenting the fact that otherwise-respectable scientists and philanthropists - like Jahn and L. Rockefeller - sometimes seem to get involved in this weird stuff. As for purporting, I think we should try to follow the style of other parapsychology articles, at least until indications of malicious intent really seem warranted. jxm (talk) 05:37, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

per the request on my talk page (and sorry I did not respond sooner) , coverage of the founding and where the money came from and general history would be a legitimate topic for a "body" section, but not really the "body" as it appears now. is the suggestion to add a new section or to re-focus the existing? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:47, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

I think there's enough material to add a short History section about the founding, funding, etc., before the current Activites section. I can tackle it in a little while. Tnx! jxm (talk) 21:20, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Publications

Robert Jahn, the Dean of Engineering and PEAR Director published several books during and after his time at PEAR alongside Dunne, the lab manager. People complained when I tried to add content regarding their theoretical models which involve quantum mechanics. At the very least, these books could be referenced since they pretty much explain what the research was all about. Their works are all published by the PEAR-continuation organization ICRL Press.

  • Margins of Reality: The Role of Consciousness in the Physical World
  • Consciousness and the Source of Reality: The PEAR Odyssey
  • Quirks of the Quantum Mind

Biotheoretician (talk) 04:46, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Jahn's books belong in the article on him. The post PEAR projects are not notable. Primary sources explaining a flawed theory that has been rejected doi:10.1038/446010a are not appropriate. - - MrBill3 (talk) 09:47, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Scientism Bias

The article currently reads: "The program had a strained relationship with Princeton University, and was considered "an embarrassment to science."

This is hardly the "unbiased" view that Wikipedia purports to advance--a SINGLE academic (who works at a University far inferior to Princeton) derided the project based on his own philosophical misunderstandings: This hardly negates the two books, dozens of articles, and multiple spin-offs that PEAR spawned. The bias of the New York Times and its atheistic science journalists shouldn't be allowed to infect Wikipedia.

This article falls far short of the "objective" criterion that Wikipedia claims to endorse--Princeton University is the top university in the nation and there is no good reason to throw 30 years of research out because it doesn't bode with the metaphysical beliefs of a couple Wikipedia editors.

http://deanradin.blogspot.com/2007/02/pear-lab.html http://philosophyandphysics.wordpress.com/2014/12/01/princeton-engineering-anomalies-research/ http://skepdic.com/pear.html

The quantum mind hypothesis and associated "psi" phenomena are well-documented and well-supported philosophically as well as empirically. There is nothing "paranormal" or "supernatural" about this research: That Wikipedia claims this is FACTUALLY WRONG and IN NEED OF CORRECTION.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qt-consciousness/ http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21128285.900-quantum-minds-why-we-think-like-quarks.html#.VHz9fWOwV8E

128.125.73.152 (talk) 23:46, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

The specific statement you object is sourced. WP:NPOV means reflecting reliable sources as due. The talk page is not a forum for discussion of the merits of the subject of the article. Please provide policy based suggestions that are backed up by reliable sources. A good read of the three core policies WP:V, WP:NPOV (particularly § WP:PSCI and WP:V and the guidelines WP:RS and WP:FRINGE would provide guidance. - - MrBill3 (talk) 05:37, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Agreed. We have no reliable independent information that PEAR's work was in any coherent way related to the formal study of quantum theory. To make that connection, we would need to cite some really reliable secondary sources, and neither the Stanford nor the New Scientist links mentioned offer us any data about the PEAR investigations. Both the authors and the publisher of the Jahn/Dunne books on this topic, which are listed here, are primary sources and cannot be used. jxm (talk) 06:27, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Please see this 128.125.73.152 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 68.181.207.98 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and Biotheoretician (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is (or is related to) the banned user Blastikus, same writing style and IP traces to a University in California (where his previous socks trace to [1]. Goblin Face (talk) 02:21, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm amazed you would launch this sort of ad hominem criticism. I don't have a clue who "Blastikus" is--probably some other person of the 40,000 on the university's wireless connection--but I'm just trying to do an honest job to improve this article. That you would bring up something like this on an ACADEMIC article on which I happen to have a lot of expertise is surprising to say the least. Biotheoretician (talk) 02:38, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

This blog by Rob Carlson, "Farewell PEAR Lab -- You were always overripe. explains how quantum physics is not a theoretically sound application to PEAR's research. While a blog and probably not quite RS (although Rob Carlson might be considered to have adequate and relevant expertise) it does provide a clear explanation rooted in actual quantum theory. I have attributed the "embarassment" statement, however of note is "the university itself appears to be a bit embarrassed by PEAR" by Reed (2003) in the NYT (full cite below). Objections to the NYT as a reliable source can be taken to RSNB as can objections to Massimo Pigliucci. I strongly suspect no support will be found there. The NYT has a strong reputation as a newspaper and Pigliucci has expert standing as well as publication by a reputed academic publisher. - - MrBill3 (talk) 15:25, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Recent changes reverted

Seek consensus before redoing a substantial set of changes (see WP:BRD). Books belong in their author's article. The post PEAR projects are not notable. Critical evaluation is appropriately placed within the narrative flow, criticism sections are discouraged. Clear explanation of this can be found in the core policy WP:NPOV § Article structure. Consider also that per core policy WP:NOR, primary sources are appropriate only to a very limited degree and for extremely narrow purposes. Acually read WP:NPOV and note that WP reflects reliable sources as due, also take particular note of the section of the NPOV core policy "Fringe theories and pseudoscience". Read the widely supported guideline WP:FRINGE noting WP:PARITY.

WP operates on consensus based on policies and guidelines. Approach editing with this in mind. Changes can be proposed here with policy based rationale to seek consensus for making them. - - MrBill3 (talk) 09:29, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

A relevant article which seems to be the source for some of the comments in the article is:

Publication in the journal Nature bears weight and the article is fairly thorough and balanced. - - MrBill3 (talk) 14:08, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Here is another good article with some pithy quotes and a good analysis:

"Having been largely ridiculed by the scientific community, most of its findings were published by the euphemistically titled Journal of Scientific Exploration, in whose pages can also be found..." (author points out unreliable nature of JSE with examples of ridiculous articles. "Despite no significant findings that would have merited recognition by a broader range of academia, the lab's closing was brought to the attention..." author notes coverage in AP and NYT. "'The research was based on premises which go against the assumptions and beliefs of mainstream scientists, so if any positive results had been obtained it would have created a sensation.' NYU's Pierre Hohenberg, a physics professor and senior vice provost for research." "Physics professor Glennys Farrar explained to me that, in the absence of a legitimate reason to expect results, research on extrasensory perception is usually 'a waste of resources...'" (in contrast with worthwhile research). "...goofy research like that of PEAR and the papers in the Journal of Scientific Exploration..." In balance the author says, "Then again, there was a time when you were a quack for thinking the world was round." - - MrBill3 (talk) 14:31, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

An older article in the NYT:

"...the scientific community, much of which regards the investigations in this bastion of Ivy League science -- where Nobel prizes come by the six pack -- on a par with table-rapping and spoon bending. And although it has permitted the research to continue for almost 25 years, the university itself appears to be a bit embarrassed by PEAR. The privately financed project is not featured in any of Princeton's brochures, and is difficult to track down on the school's main Internet site." "Critics of the lab -- and there are many -- would not give a nickel for this work. Some think the research is, at best, beside the point; others believe it is plain wrong. Robert L. Park, a science gadfly and a physics professor at the University of Maryland, spoke for many colleagues when he said: 'It's voodoo science. They're kidding themselves. In 300 years of looking, not one of this kind of claim of telekinesis has been confirmed. Some people just can't be happy with a universe that pays no attention to us.'" " Philip Anderson, a Nobel Prize-winning physicist at Princeton, became so vitriolic about PEAR that he was, he claims, threatened with a lawsuit. 'I can't talk with my usual candor,' Dr. Anderson said in a recent interview. 'But I can say that I think I represent 95 percent of the physicists that I know in not believing that this kind of work is sound or worth doing. I don't think the lab has reproduced any effects that have convinced any unbiased observers.'" "The university would not finance the project..." The author goes on to point out financing by James McDonnell. Several editors have expressed the opinion that this financing by McDonnell should be mentioned. I think that can be supported as it is present in a number of sources, possibly making it a notable detail. "After about 500 million trials in the lab and hundreds of kangaroo courts in the scientific community, the question ["that equipment is ignoring the subjective radiation that is coming from the pilot's mind?"] is one that Mr. Jahn and his colleagues can still not answer definitively. The feeling is that the lab has probably gone as far as it can for now."

- - MrBill3 (talk) 15:07, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

I would also argue that this:

is a reliable source. The Daily Free Press is a notable publication with a solid reputation and editorial oversight. The article is well written and it refers to a number of sources consulted that are reliable. What specific content is argued that this article cannot support? - - MrBill3 (talk) 15:41, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Neither Nature nor the New York Times nor any major publication I've seen has referred to the work as "pseudoscience"--and yet the DFP, "staffed by about 50 editors, writers, reporters and photographers, many but not all of whom are BU journalism students, who work on a volunteer basis and change over each semester," did this in the opening title. The piece was an editor's opinion of PEAR--it was not meant to be any sort of scientific criticism or methodological survey of the research. If you want to include a source that refers to PEAR as "pseudoscience," the article has lost all journalistic and editorial standards of nonbias. Biotheoretician (talk)
Multiple sources provide descriptions of PEARS work that meet the definition of pseudoscience. See below Hansene et al. " depart from commonly accepted criteria for formal research in science" "There do not appear to be any methods available for proper statistical evaluation of these experiments because of the way in which they were conducted." and on an on. A journalist and publication remains a reliable source when it calls a spade a spade, particularly when experts have been consulted and are quoted. Multiple major publications have indeed referred to the work of PEAR with clear descriptions that more than meet the definition of pseudoscience. ""...the scientific community, much of which regards the investigations in this bastion of Ivy League science -- where Nobel prizes come by the six pack -- on a par with table-rapping and spoon bending." from the NYT. "The research was based on premises which go against the assumptions and beliefs of mainstream scientists" NYU's Pierre Hohenberg, a physics professor and senior vice provost for research. "Physics professor Glennys Farrar explained to me that, in the absence of a legitimate reason to expect results"It's voodoo science" Robert L. Park quoted in the NYT. "I think I represent 95 percent of the physicists that I know in not believing that this kind of work is sound or worth doing." Philip Anderson. No serious contention can be made that the use of the term pseudoscience by The Daily News or by WP is not clearly supported by multiple reliable sources. - - MrBill3 (talk) 03:03, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

It closed in 2007 this should be stated clearly

The phrase "concluded its research" is unnecessarily vague. PEAR closed in 2007. In fact it is that closure which brought the subject the level of notability to warrant a WP article. WP should clearly state PEAR closed in 2007 there are literally dozens of newspaper and other sources that state this unequivocally, WP should reflect this plurality of sources in the clear terms used by the sources. - - MrBill3 (talk) 03:11, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Validity of "Skeptic" Sources

They might provide a good reference for finding critical viewpoints, but how much prominence should these narrow set of publications be given in the holistic overview of PEAR's 25 years of work?

Sources like these: The Skeptic's Dictionary Skeptical Inquirer Biotheoretician (talk) 04:46, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

See WP:PARITY, WP:PSCI. Note that PEAR's 25 years of work has amounted to what exactly? What is the academic/scientific consensus on the achievements of PEAR as reflected in reliable sources? - - MrBill3 (talk) 09:44, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
What independent third party reliable sources are proposed as balance per policy? - - MrBill3 (talk) 15:42, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
There is no academic consensus--the work was and remains highly controversial in all circles; that is the difficultly that comes with gathering strictly factual sources on this sort of thing: everyone has an opinion, everyone has a different opinion, and not all opinions are equally valid. Compare the following:

Factual Sources

Pro-PEAR

Anti-PEAR

Turingchurch.com is at least as valid from the standpoint of science journalism as the New York Times and so-called "Skeptic" sources; but the article seems to ignore this contrasting viewpoint altogether. The "factual sources" of the article should be based on real journalistic sources--the New York Times articles themselves and the Nature article itself--not limited excepts from such sources criticizing PEAR as "an embarrassment to science" with no further exposition. It is misleading and doesn't accurately represent the actual controversy, making the whole issue seem one-sided--WHICH IT IS NOT.Biotheoretician (talk) 18:49, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Please read WP:RS and WP:UNDUE. We dont provide a false balance between the academic mainstream scientists and fringe wingnuts. There is no scientific "controversy".-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:08, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Also read with an eye for understanding WP:PSCI this is core policy. A rather detailed explanation can be found in the widely supported guideline WP:FRINGE note there are references there to the other two core policies WP:V and WP:OR. - - MrBill3 (talk) 03:18, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

" Its work remains highly controversial." no has been rejected and described as pseudoscience

The sentence, "Its work remains highly controversial."

1) does not represent the source cited which says, "Only romantics -- and some parapsychologists -- are likely to lament the loss of this unique institution", "But such tiny deviations from chance have not convinced mainstream scientists, and the lab's results have been studiously ignored by the wider community. Apart from a couple of early reviews...Jahn's papers were rejected from mainstream journals. Jahn believes he was unfairly judged because of the questions he asked, not because of methodological flaws. "French thinks that even though the chances of a real effect being discovered are low, the implications of a positive result would be so interesting that work such as Jahn's is worth pursuing. Many scientists disagree. Besides being a waste of time, such work is unscientific, they argue, because no attempt is ever made to offer a physical explanation for the effect." "William Happer, a prominent physicist at Princeton, takes the middle ground. He believes the scientific community should be open to research that asks any question, however unlikely, but that if experiments don't produce conclusive results after a reasonable time, researchers should move on. "I don't know why this took up a whole lifetime," he says."

2) As above multiple sources have described PEAR's work in such a way that the description could be substituted as a definition for pseudoscience. To wit, "depart from commonly accepted criteria for formal research in science""on a par with table-rapping and spoon bending""based on premises which go against the assumptions and beliefs of mainstream scientists""the absence of a legitimate reason to expect results""voodooscience" and not sound or worth doing.

Looking at the definition of pseudoscience and the applicable PAG. It would be more accurate to state,

"It's work has been rejected by the scientific community and is considered pseudoscience."

- - MrBill3 (talk) 03:46, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree. [2]. The Nature article should not be misrepresented as suggesting there is an "ongoing controversy" within science. - LuckyLouie (talk) 03:50, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

James Alcock evaluation

If you want a good source it is Alcock, J. E. (2003). Give the Null Hypothesis a Chance: Reasons to Remain Doubtful about the Existence of Psi. Journal of Consciousness Studies 10: 29-50. [3] It goes into problems with the PEAR lab experiments, and some of Stanley Jeffers criticisms. Good detail there. Alcock also dedicates a chapter in one of his books to flaws in the PEAR experiments. Alcock, J.E. (1990), Science and Supernature: A Critical Appraisal of Parapsychology (Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Books). Sadly the book it out of print and rare. But see the above paper I linked to. Goblin Face (talk) 03:51, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

"both praised and criticized"

Just briefly looking at the recent activity here, I noticed this edit saying that "PEAR's activities have been both praised and criticized for their level of methodological rigor." Two sources are listed; the first is

  • Hansen, George P., Jessica Utts, and Betty Markwick. "Critique of the PEAR Remote Viewing experiments." Journal of Parapsychology 56.2 (1992): 97-113.

which concludes,

The PEAR remote-viewing experiments depart from commonly accepted criteria for formal research in science. In fact, they are undoubtedly some of the poorest quality ESP experiments published in many years. The defects provide plausible alternative explanations. There do not appear to be any methods available for proper statistical evaluation of these experiments because of the way in which they were conducted.

The second source is skepdic, which is at least equally harsh. I don't see any support for "praised", and the edit looks like a POV push that misrepresents the sources. Manul 22:43, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Compare this view from Nature:
"Robert Park, a physicist at the University of Maryland, adds that if you run any test often enough, it's easy to get the "tiny statistical edges" the PEAR team seems to have picked up. If a coin is flipped enough times, for example, even a slight imperfection can produce more than 50% heads.
"In the end, the decision whether to pursue a tiny apparent effect or put it down to statistical flaws is a subjective one. "It raises the issue of where you draw the line," says sceptic Chris French, an 'anomalistic psychologist' at Goldsmiths, University of London, who tries to explain what seem to be paranormal experiences in straightforward psychological terms. French thinks that even though the chances of a real effect being discovered are low, the implications of a positive result would be so interesting that work such as Jahn's is worth pursuing." Biotheoretician (talk) 23:30, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
That's not one of the sources you cited, and even if you did cite it, it doesn't support the claim that "PEAR's activities have been both praised and criticized for their level of methodological rigor." Manul 23:38, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
The Hansen psychic paper should not be on the article. It's been put onto other articles as well, should be removed. Goblin Face (talk) 03:42, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
What is your objection to the Hansen article? The journal is not RS in general? I think the article might be considered RS for the statement given but I haven't read it yet as I would rather save the time if you can explain. - - MrBill3 (talk) 03:49, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
It was published in the Journal of Parapsychology and Jessica Utts (a well-known believer in remote viewing) co-wrote it. I don't find the journal RS and Hansen is a well known fringe advocate for all kinds of weird ideas. Hansen copied the article onto his own website and it appears to be down right now. But Biotheoretician is actually correct in pointing out on Jahn's talk-page that the article contains contradictory information. I consider it a weak critique. It's better to cite the critique from the Skeptical Inquirer or see below, James Alcock. Goblin Face (talk) 04:00, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Non primary sources needed

In an encyclopedia the summary and analysis of studies should come from secondary sources not a WP editors OR summary and analysis of primary sources or the involved primary sources who conducted the experiments. This is clear in policies and guidelines see WP:NOR and WP:V. - - MrBill3 (talk) 13:46, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Quantum Mysticism; Nonreductive views of Consciousness

A lot of the PEAR publications (particularly their three books) devote a lot of focus to the history of quantum theory and the nonreductive views of consciousness historically held by some of the pioneers of the original proposal. As it stands the article ignores all of this and paints the science-spirituality dichotomy as an all-or-nothing approach, rather than a gradual continuum from materialism to mentalism (as it actually exists). I think this article should include more about the philosophical (and metaphysical) foundations behind PEAR and the history of mysticism and science--an article that ignores these aspects will necessarily paint a picture of science that is lacking and opposed to all aspects of the spiritual and psychical--which is incorrect, at least when it comes to the Nobel Prize winners who created quantum theory in the first place.

http://www.academia.edu/260503/_Mysticism_in_quantum_mechanics_the_forgotten_controversy_

2605:E000:6384:B800:60B9:D22C:9946:9EDF (talk) 14:31, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM, nothing on PEAR or Jahn. Sources on the subject needed. See also WP:FRINGE and WP:PSCI. - - MrBill3 (talk) 14:38, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Balance as due

Two notable commentators quoted in the sources have said they think (in varying degrees) the type of research done at PEAR should be done. Should the article mention that? I think it would need to be made clear this is a minority (sometimes expressed with qualifications) view. The only two cited are in the Nature (Odling-Smee, 2007) article French and William Happer. I don't know how this falls in terms of due for a tiny minority.Full quotes posted above.

Several editors have suggested that PEAR's funding by James McDonnell is notable enough for inclusion. It is mentioned in multiple sources. Should this information be (re)included? - - MrBill3 (talk) 14:34, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

perhaps move the final paragraph into a new section "Reception and impact" and the remaining paragraphs more of a "History / what they did" - the funding can be included there. and the "reception" add those who have different views, the non-impact of the studies, and the hit to Princeton's rep.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:45, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Princeton University is still the top ranked National University in the country, last I checked. Other than that single op-ed in the New York Times, is there any evidence that PEAR's research made any "hit to Princeton's rep"? The same article quoted a physicist from Princeton who defended Jahn's actions and said that he had a right to do his research. This simply sounds like the scientific method and peer review process (which PEAR alleges was unfairly used to ignore their published data)--not an "embarrassment" and certainly not pseudoscience. Is a single statement from Robert L. Park (a self-proclaimed "skeptic" and physicist from the University of Maryland--College Park, currently ranked #62 in US News) really indicative of the views of the scientific community as a whole? Is there any evidence he even had knowledge of PEAR's research, or was he just making a broad generalization about his views of psi phenomena and parapsychology as a whole?
2605:E000:6384:B800:60B9:D22C:9946:9EDF (talk) 14:22, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Read the sources and the preceding discussions also see policy WP:PSCI and guideline WP:FRINGE also WP:PARITY. The views of the scientific community as a whole are reflected by the lack of published research, serious academic inquiry etc. as well as the statements of the sources, which include an article from the journal Nature. - - MrBill3 (talk) 14:41, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

The article completely misrepresents science, quantum theory, philosophy, and spirituality

There are an enormous number of well-respected scientists who would absolutely not categorize the quantum mind hypothesis espoused by PEAR as pseudoscience. The article as it stands is completely unbalanced and in need of serious revision.

Such luminaries include: Erwin Schrödinger (Nobel Prize winner), Eugene Wigner (Nobel Prize winner), John Hagelin (string theorist and member of the Transcendental Meditation movement, which seeks to reconcile Vedantic spirituality with modern physics), Roger Penrose (one of the greatest mathematical physicists of the past century; has published papers with Stephen Hawking), Fritjof Capra (member of the Fundamental Fysiks Group at UC Berkeley), Wolfgang Pauli (Nobel Prize winner), Werner Heisenberg (Nobel Prize winner), J. Robert Oppenheimer (father of the atomic bomb), Niels Bohr (Nobel Prize winner), Nikola Tesla (engineer, physicist; did not win the Nobel Prize due to political issues with Thomas Edison), and David Bohm (creator of Bohmian mechanics or pilot wave theory; studied under Oppenheimer and collaborated with Einstein), just to name a few.

As the article currently stands, it categorizes Nobel Prize winners, noted authors, pioneers of the original quantum theory, the creators of quantum information science, and the Dean of Princeton University's Engineering Department as pseudoscientists. This is absurd and completely misrepresents what science is and what the greatest scientists actually think about this sort of thing. Quantum mysticism might not be popular with academics today, but to throw the baby out with the bath water like this distorts Wikipedia's editorial standards. The article needs to be redone completely.

"What happens when you mix the foundations of quantum mechanics with hot tubs, ESP, saffron robes, and psychedelic drugs? …the perfect guide to this far-off and far-out era of scientific wackiness.” —Seth Lloyd, author of Programming the Universe"

2605:E000:6384:B800:A1D8:25C9:784B:6F47 (talk) 17:24, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

This talk page is not a forum to discuss the subject. Do you have any sources that discuss PEAR? What changes would you suggest specifically based on what sources? Note that the area of study pursued at PEAR is not one which is represented by current published research, that pretty well demonstrates the consensus that it is worthless pseudoscience. If there was validity to this nonsense it would be groundbreaking and researchers would be becoming famous for successful demonstrations. Regardless PEAR clearly failed to produce, their methodology was flawed, their results couldn't be replicated, sound theoretical basis was lacking etc. - - MrBill3 (talk) 02:11, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
"Note that the area of study pursued at PEAR is not one which is represented by current published research, that pretty well demonstrates the consensus that it is worthless pseudoscience."
PEAR claims that the mind can, in certain instances, display nonlocal phenomena such as psychokinesis and ESP. This is tantamount to calling the brain a quantum computer. I'm not a statistician, so I can't comment on the validity of their results (I suspect you aren't either), but I fail to see what makes any of this pseudoscience. From my view, this is simply looks like quantum information science, very similar to what was done at the Fundamental Fysiks Group at UC Berkeley in the 1970s. I think the article should reflect this fact and should reference other nonreductive views of consciousness to give a more comprehensive view of the topic--especially the quantum mysticism, which was shared by many of the pioneers of the original quantum theory.
"It is certainly true, as Kaiser writes, citing John Bell, that "good scientists should […] keep an open mind," but one must take care to not have so open a mind that one's brains spill out! As Kaiser states, "[the] Fundamental Fysiks Group's dogged efforts to meld quantum entanglement with parapsychology and Eastern mysticism set the group's members apart from the physics mainstream." They were indeed outsiders, and their main contribution to physics was in their role as gadflies—with one exception. They did manage a rather innovative scheme to fund their efforts to deconstruct quantum theory. Some of this colorful group were supported by the Central Intelligence Agency, the "Defense Intelligence Agency and other branches of the Pentagon," who were interested in whether quantum mechanics could provide scientific validity to claims of ESP and remote viewing as legitimate tools for espionage."
http://www.booksandculture.com/articles/webexclusives/2012/march/howthehippies.html
Why does this article pretend that other quantum physics groups don't dabble with ideas outside the mainstream, such as remote viewing and ESP? The article makes PEAR sound kookier than it actually was and distorts the scientific mainsteam, as if no other physicists have considered these topics and PEAR were some isolated incident.
2605:E000:6384:B800:60B9:D22C:9946:9EDF (talk) 14:24, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
"From my view, this is simply looks like" That's what is called original research or synthesis. WP represents what is published in reliable sources about a subject. Note the statement, "PEAR's work has been rejected by the scientific community and is considered pseudoscience." is supported with five references, specifically discussing the subject of the article (PEAR). You have yet to provide any source which discusses PEAR. That is what is needed for content in an article about PEAR. The opinion of a WP editor about what is related or lends validity is OR/SYNTH. That other researchers may have had some minor (where is the published research?) efforts in the idea that quantum means ESP is real is irrelevant to an article about PEAR unless quality published sources discuss this in relation to PEAR.
Short version, sources on PEAR for article on PEAR. - - MrBill3 (talk) 14:36, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
To be clear: If I or somebody else were to publish a book, including a discussion of quantum theory, ESP, parapsychology, and PEAR, and got it published by a reputable publisher, etc., that would count as a source and the article could be fixed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:6384:B800:1879:8B14:A367:9D32 (talk) 14:20, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
The article is "fixed" in that it appropriately represents the mainstream experts in the subject. If such a source as you describe was published by reputable publisher with respected author etc. we would probably include that as a dissenting opinion. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:32, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Princeton_Engineering_Anomalies_Research_Lab/Archive_1&oldid=1053371822"