This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Martinphi you have falsely claimed consensus. The fact that Paste reverted to my version gives you the lie. Please don't make false claims. Pls check what consensus means. Compromise is not the issue. You may want to read Getting to Yes on this issue. The issue is using verifiable and reliable sources. Nonetheless, for the moment I am happy to leave the page at YOUR version while we discuss. I have put a POV tag on it in the meantime. Naturally I need not warn you to leave it in place until this is sorted. Please now give me your reasons for deleting the reference. Mccready (talk) 07:23, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
This page has the established consensus of many editors who worked almost two years to bring it to Featured Article status, and the GA review and FA review process. The neutrality of the article was painstakenly achieved (see archives for extensive discussions) and isn't dependent upon an edit war du jour. --Nealparr(talk to me) 19:19, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't see anything wrong with Mccready's suggestions for improving the lead. Does anyone else? ScienceApologist (talk) 19:21, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Specifically: 1) We all agreed a long time ago that quotes were a bad way to go in this article because it leads to point, counter-point style. 2) The addition is redundant. This is already covered by the last paragraph of the intro.--Nealparr(talk to me) 19:26, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
(ec) I really like the sentence Mccready included to the effect that this subject is dismissed as pseudoscience by science educators. This is a very real and very true point (I know from firsthand experience). At many universities, this is the only exposure parapsychology gets in classroom settings. This is at least one place where it gets its notability. Can we include this? I'm also interested in the fact that the main club for promoting this subject admits that most scientists treat it as pseudoscience. This goes beyond the careful phrasing and I think we should consider strengthening the point that parapsychology is generally thought of as pseudoscientific. We don't need to give a quote to point this out, but simply pointing it out is a good idea, IMHO. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:29, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
These are all points already covered by the article. The last paragraph of the intro summarizes this and the criticism section expounds on it in greater detail. --Nealparr(talk to me) 19:40, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Not adequately. The lead is supposed to give the reader the most important information. What I am saying is that it doesn't do justice to the fact that most mainstream discussions of this topic lump it (rightly or wrongly) with pseudoscience. The summary in the last paragraph is inadequate. I'd offer my own version, but if you would write for the enemy, I'd love to see what you could come up with that better explains the outright rejection and marginalization of this subject in the academy. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:46, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
This too has been discussed at length. Where you say "outright rejection", I point to the sources that show that a few universities in the US still have parapsychology programs, several in the UK, and more scattered abroad. Then you say, but it's severly marginalized. Then I point to the "Parapsychology Today" section that says exactly that. I'd write for the enemy except that I don't have an enemy here. I just know that all of this has already been covered. It was over the course of almost two years. Basically, "outright rejection" is supported by some sources, sure, but refuted by the demonstration that there is still parapsychology programs with academic ties, in other words it's not outright rejection because of a marginalized acceptance. The level of degree to which it had been "rejected" was discussed at length and this is what came of that. --Nealparr(talk to me) 19:51, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
A few universities in the US offer degrees in creation science too. Yes, you can always find "odd men out". That's not the issue. We all agree that parapsychology is a marginalized field, but the way the current article lead presents this marginalization doesn't do justice to how dramatic it is. I'll write an alternative way of putting it if you like. Note that LaraLove is telling us to come to a new consensus. I know you don't like to do this, but it's got to happen. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:01, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
I replied to LaraLove below. Duck test: Please list the universities that offer creation science programs that involve actual laboratory experiments. Up until Feb. 2007 parapsychology lab experiments were still being conducted Princeton. That lab closed of it's own accord and wasn't "run out". You still have lab experiments at the University of Edinburgh and all the other places listed in Parapsychology#Organizations and publications. If creation science has something similar, I'll concede the point. --Nealparr(talk to me) 20:13, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Interestingly, a list of such colleges and universities was just recently offered [1]. There are definitely more colleges and universities offering creation science courses in the US than there are offering parapsychology courses. This probably has to do with religion's historic association with education. The PEAR lab was something of an anomaly in itself. It was essentially a private lab that was on Princeton's campus because the emeritus prof. involved paid his own way with the help of a rich benefactor. Princeton made money off the lab and that's why they let him set-up shop. Besides, appeal to authority is not what we're after here. You and I both know that parapsychology is not considered a legitimate academic subject at the vast majority of institutions of higher education. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:31, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
SA, most of those are Bible Colleges(<-red link that deserves an article) and they offer courses on the topic, not laboratory research programs. This isn't an appeal to authority. It's directly related to your assertion that there is an outright rejection in academic circles of parapsychology. It's not an appeal to authority to list off university associations; associations with universities refutes the claim that it is outright rejected. I completely agree that it's marginalized, and so does this article as written. --Nealparr(talk to me) 20:42, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Most, not all. Most of the colleges that offer courses in parapsychology are associated with New Age beliefs (Naropa University anyone?) Again, you're missing the point, the fact is that this subject is not taken seriously. Mccready's quote from the Parapsychological Association even admits to it. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:46, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Consensus can change. The new version should be discussed with those currently editing the article and a new consensus reached. Lara❤Love 19:27, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Consensus can change, sure, but there's nearly two years of archived discussions, mediations, and even an arbitration surrounding this particular topic. Previous consensus should have weight in light of that, and editors wishing to make substantial changes should familiarize themselves with that material. Otherwise, what was the point of two years worth of discussions? It's not like parapsychology has made radical changes. They're just as stagnant as before. So what kind of change would require a "new consensus"? Just different editors. If new editors familiarized themselves with past discussions, that would save them a lot of rehashing of old discussions. IMHO. Also, this "new consensus" is supposed to be over Mccready's addition, which is problematic not for neutrality reasons, but for style reasons. How much of consensus against poorly written material does there have to be? It 1) uses quotes unnecessarily and is 2) redundant considering the last paragraph. --Nealparr(talk to me) 20:13, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Previous consensus can help, but when certain editors were not involved in creating that consensus, you cannot claim that the issues have been completely addressed. Remember, Wikipedia is a work in progress. We are never finished writing articles, even when they are featured. Notice how a featured article is described at the top. While I brought Big Bang to featured status, it now looks very different from what it looked like when it first arrived because new people had new ideas and decided to take the article in a new direction. No one owns articles at Wikipedia and we have to come to terms that articles may undergo dramatic shifts as new editors come in and old editors leave or move on to other projects. Consensus does not mean that we stay glued to one version (otherwise, we wouldn't have the encyclopedia based on wiki technology). I know, Neal, that this is one of your major frustrations with Wikipedia. Don't take it personally. I think you did a fine job with this article. There are just some things I think need to be changed with the lead. Don't take it so personally. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:31, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
I won't take it personally, but let's talk about the actual additions. Mccready's was problematic for several reasons. --Nealparr(talk to me) 20:42, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm not so interested in Mccready's "actual" addition. The point is that he had some good ideas for how to improve the lead. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:46, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
At least you're making suggestions before adding them, so that's fair. --Nealparr(talk to me) 21:19, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Workshopping the lead
A few notes:
Words to avoid says "say no to the word phenomenon". We're going to have to eliminate this word.
The phrase: "a neutral term non-suggestive of what causes the phenomena or experiences" is an obvious POV. We can just let it be known that these things are called "psi" and leave it at that.
The phrase: "a number of universities" connotes that there are a lot of universities which fund study of parapsychology. This is plainly not true. I rewrote it to indicate this, but the wording may need tweaking. I think you'll be good at this, Neal.
I'm not convinced that listing the titles of the Journals is really all that good for a lead. I offered an alternative wording. Please consider.
Meta-analysis is probably not important to the lead. Is there any argument why it is listed?
We don't need to say that Hyman is a psychologist.
I tried to incorporate the two points missing from the lead that frame parapsychology as marginalized.
I moved the fringe science designation to the first paragraph. I think it provides better framing there.
I'll come back later and have a look at the other suggestions (I'm busy today), but I was surprised by the WP:WTA appeal since it was you who added it [2]. That's a WP:PSTS argument in spirit if not letter. You should be up front about that if you're serious about removing the word, because I disagree with what you said over there about "As such, a phenomenon would be something unequivocally held by scientific consensus to be real". That phrasing makes WP:WTA incompatible with WP:NAME, which calls for topics to use their common name, supported by sources. Paranormal phenomena is unequivocally held by scientific consensus to be not be real, but that's its common name. Further, except in the cases of hoaxes, no one disputes that "there was an observed event" (phenomenon), mainstream scientists just write it off as mundane phenomena misinterpreted as being unexplained by science (paranormal), or a subjective delusion occuring in the observer's mind. In other words, the definition of "phenomena" as an objectively observable event that has a scientific explanation is a bit overboard, especially in a list of words to avoid. Take the example of electronic voice phenomenon (it's common name). WTA now says that we're supposed to call it something other than it's common name. What's more is that (again separating the hoaxes), no one disputes that it's a subjective event (a piece of the recording that often sounds like a voice, subjectively) interpreted by some listeners as voices (paradolia). As such it is a phenomenon (neutral term describing the event) that is paradolia (scientific explanation) or spirits (paranormal explanation). It's only when you get to the explanations of the phenomena that it becomes controversial, because the paradolia explanation for the phenomena is entirely scientific. --Nealparr(talk to me) 21:31, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
It's words to "avoid", not words to "completely excise". The point is that the word "phenomenon" is equivocal. You know it's equivocal, I know it's equivocal, we all know it's equivocal. If it weren't equivocal, we would use it. Since it is, just look for a synonym that isn't equivocal. Of course we aren't going to change the EVP article. WP:NAME trumps WP:WTA because Wikipedia reports what is commonly used. Creation science isn't science, but we don't rename it because that's its common name. The rest of your argument is silly. Calling ESP a "phenomenon" is highly POV. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:02, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
It's not point of view because the qualifiers in the current article is "ostensibly paranormal psychological phenomena". Translated, that means "maybe paranormal, but definitely psychological observed events". There is a quantifiable psychological event going on when someone says they observed ESP, even if it's just wishful thinking that it's paranormal. The quantifiable psychological event is they interpreted, or connected, two isolated phenomena to be related to each other. I dreamed of a plane crash months before it happened is connecting the phenomenon of the plane crash to the phenomenon of the dream, through a third psychological phenomenon, intepretation. That's a maybe paranormal, but definitely psychological. I don't have any glaring problems with the intro you suggested below, so let's get some feedback from other editors. --Nealparr(talk to me) 22:24, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Nah. The adverb "ostensibly" must either modify the adjective "paranormal" or "psychological". So that doesn't cut it. There is not a quantifiable "psychological event" when someone claims they observed ESP any more than there is a quantifiable "psychological event" when someone claims to observe anything. The idea that parapsychology is interested in the perception of a claim of observation is silly. It's not. It's interested in claims that are paranormal. Such events cannot be called "phenomena" because the definition of "phenomenon" in science is unequivocally related to uncontroversial observations. Granted, there are other definitions of the word "phenomenon" which may apply in these instances, but since relying on an alternate definition is confusing and equivocal, it's best to simply use a synonym that doesn't have these problems. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:35, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Look, I don't care what the article says as long as it's neutral and stays a Featured Article. That means I don't like edit wars and I don't like scare templates. That's all I'm really concerned with. With or without "phenomenon" it's all the same to me as long as it continues to meet FA requirements. I do completely disagree, though, that "phenomenon" needs to be avoided and I disagree with your analysis of how the term is used. "Ostensibly" modifies "paranormal" in the way that I described above. Psychological events are frequently referred to as phenomena, even when it's not related to the paranormal. It's just an observed phenomena and that includes delusional observations. Sources directly related to parapsychology, on both sides, frequently use the term so that's a good test of whether it's neutral. Whenever I want to get an outside opinion of neutrality concerning paranormal subjects, I look across the aisle to what skeptics have to say. As you can see, skeptics use it all the time. There are eight instances of the word in the Skeptic's Dictionary article on parapsychology. It's neutral and frequently used. But as long as the article stays FA, I don't really care if it's used here. --Nealparr(talk to me) 00:09, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Neal, you need to lighten up. There are plenty of other words available that don't have the issues that "phenomenon" does. Just use one of them. This avoids the issue entirely. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:28, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Sources?
What sources are proposed to cite parapsychology as pseudoscience? ——Martinphi☎ Ψ Φ—— 00:37, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
SA, I have no doubt that some science educators label parapsychology as a pseudoscience, but can you find better sources? Biology Cabinet doesn't "look" very reliable, and the David F. Austin source is self-published. Even a source to an educator's skeptical society would suffice for this statement. --Nealparr(talk to me) 19:41, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm pretty pleased with these sources. Perhaps you would like to ask at WP:RSN to see what they think. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:57, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't really see anything good about them relative to how they are being used at least. Could you tell us more about why you think they are OK for this article? ——Martinphi☎ Ψ Φ—— 23:17, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
How about we skip all of that and swap two flimsy sources for one really good one? Studies in Science Education by the University of Leeds, Centre for Studies in Science Education.[3] I'd rather see that used because it's academic and actually about science education. --Nealparr(talk to me) 23:19, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I switched in the book reference in place of biology cabinet. However, I kept the course reference because I think it is valuable to have: it shows how it is treated in a college classroom setting. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:39, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
And what exactly are we sourcing with this source? ——Martinphi☎ Ψ Φ—— 01:22, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
The sources do not support the claim. The Austin source supports the opposite point of view (that parapsychology is not a pseudoscience) inasmuch as it supports anything at all. That is, it is a rejection of various reasons for thinking parapsychology is a pseudoscience. And the Layton source appears to cite an article form "Collins" in 1982 (probably Harry Collins) which lists parapsychology, amongst other things, in a discussion of para-science, fringe-science and pseudoscience. But which one is parapsychology: fringe, para or pseudo? So there is one source saying the exact opposite of what you want and another which probably doesn't support your view very strongly, if at all. But to then go further and use this falsely attributed view as the standardly held view of science educators as a whole is far far worse. It's hard to explain just how wrong that is! TheLaPesca (talk) 20:18, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
The sources do support the claim. In fact you have completely mischaracterized both of the sources. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:58, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Psi?
The previous version said that "psi is a neutral term" and then cited this claim to the Parapsychology association. That doesn't bode well. Let's try to get an actual definition for psi that doesn't spoonfeed the reader a line about "neutrality", okay? ScienceApologist (talk) 19:50, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
The "neutral term" part isn't about Wikipedia's NPOV policy or how Wikipedia uses the term "neutral". In other words, it's not spoon-feeding. It's part of the definition. It means that the term "psi" is "non-suggestive of what causes the phenomena or how it is experienced", and it is neutral in that way, and that's part of the definition. Psi means X (non-descriptive anomaly). It was coined as a replacement for terms like extra-sensory, psychokinesis, and so on, all of which imply some sort of mechanism or locus of the experience. Extra-sensory implies some sort of sense undiscovered, psychokinesis implies some relation to the mind, and so on. When parapsychologists realized that they aren't sure that it involved undiscovered senses, or couldn't pin down a relation to the mind, they looked for another term that is non-suggestive of what causes the phenomena or how it is experienced, and introduced psi as a replacement for all the loaded terms they were previously using. --Nealparr(talk to me) 20:17, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Part of a definition cannot be that the word is a "neutral term". That simply doesn't work. A definition has the form of A is a B that C where A is the thing being defined, B is the relevant category and C is the distinguishing characteristics. The relevant category for psi is not "neutral terms". Please try to offer an adequate definition. Thanks. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:02, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Definition:
Psi = "Anomalous processes"
The term psi denotes anomalous processes of information or energy transfer, processes such as telepathy or other forms of extrasensory perception that are currently unexplained in terms of known physical or biological mechanisms. The term is purely descriptive: It neither implies that such anomalous phenomena are paranormal nor connotes anything about their underlying mechanisms [Bem, D. J., & Honorton, C. (1994). Does psi exist? Replicable evidence for an anomalous process of information transfer. Psychological Bulletin', 115, 4-18.]
And again, it is not a neologism as you said below. A neologism is a recently created term that hasn't caught on and doesn't have widespread use. "Psi" was coined in 1942 and is used by all parapsychologists. --Nealparr(talk to me) 20:36, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Whether it's used by all parapsychologists is not the issue. In fact, this makes it jargon. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:02, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, it's jargon, but not a neologism. The place for parapsychology jargon is here in this article, and the two sentences (this one and the one before) explains it's use, per the guidelines. (WP:JARGON just links to Wikipedia's glossary of terms, so I don't know why you included that) Sorry, wrong link. Apparently WP:JARGON is different from WP:Jargon. Someone should fix that.--Nealparr(talk to me) 21:17, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree and disagree. The term Psi was perhaps introduced as neutral term (much like UFO) but it has now become synonymous with things like ESP. That is, it makes sense to say you don't believe in Psi or UFOs, and that would make no sense if the term was really neutral. That being said, the article could easily use the word and explain this point - I can't be the first person to have noticed it.TheLaPesca (talk) 20:23, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
ESP implies an undiscovered sense. Psi implies nothing like that, so it's not synonymous. There's a distinct difference. Psi doesn't even make a claim that can be considered non-neutral. It's just a label. It doesn't even claim that there is an anomaly to talk about because it is only used after such a claim has been already been made. The full sentence was that "psi is neutral term non-suggestive of what causes the phenomena or how it is experienced", and that sentence is entirely correct. You have to remember, parapsychology has been criticized for decades by mainstream science. They take that criticism and adapt. Whereas extrasensory perception was a non-neutral label that received criticism, psi is a refinement based on that criticism.--Nealparr(talk to me) 20:36, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
That's the part I agree with. In one sense of the term you are absolutely right. But, Psi is now also used in popular culture in a way that is synonymous with ESP. Two examples, the Hawkwind song "Psi-Power" and the computer game "Psi-Ops: The Mindgate Conspiracy". I could find many others but the last line of the Wiki article on Psi makes it clear. Something probably needs to be said about this.TheLaPesca (talk) 20:45, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Psi has other uses, and the Psi article has links to all of these. This is just about how psi is used in parapsychology, which isn't popular culture. The parapsychology article doesn't need to explain all the other uses because they're unrelated to the topic. The article on Genes doesn't have to explain that "Gene" is also a person's name. That's what disambiguation pages are for. --Nealparr(talk to me) 20:55, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't mind if we include a definition of psi in the lead, but the one offered before was terrible. Let's try to do better. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:02, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
The use of "Psi" that means ESP type powers, which is probably the most common and well-known meaning of the term, and derives its use directly from the parapsychological use with which it overlaps. It is therefore quite unlike Gene and gene in this respect. It may be that the article can be clear enough the "psi" is here being used in the technical sense as defined to not warrant further clarification, but not because of any of the "reasons" suggested above. TheLaPesca (talk) 21:23, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
No it doesn't overlap. If popular culture borrows terms from parapsychology to give their comic books extra "umpf", that doesn't mean that they overlap, that means one misappropriated the other. That's science-fiction, not science. Parapsychology's use is a specific use outlined in the article, regardless of X-Men's use. This is an article about parapsychology, not comics. Wikipedia provides interlinking. If the popular culture use warrants an article, then that's a Psi (popular culture), not Psi (parapsychology), but popular culture isn't parapsychology. A science-related article doesn't have to cover science-fiction. Also, these issues are best left to the Psi (parapsychology) article rather than here. The term here links there. Further (I just checked), that article already says "In popular culture, 'psi phenomena' have become synonymous with psychic and 'psionic' phenomena," so there's no need to confuse readers here listing off all the extra uses. --Nealparr(talk to me) 21:31, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Nobody said it was an article about popular culture. The point is that the uses clearly overlap. One refers to, amongst other things, ESP and so does the other. That they do so in subtly different ways is a cause of possible confusion that can easily be avoided.TheLaPesca (talk) 21:41, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
One use is popular culture. The other use is parapsychology. This is an article about parapsychology. It's not about popular culture. What's your suggestion on how it "can easily be avoided"? Mine is put popular culture in popular culture and put parapsychology in parapsychology. That seems easy enough. --Nealparr(talk to me) 21:47, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Well mine would be to add something like "..although in common usage the term [psi] does now imply a paranormal quality" or such like.TheLaPesca (talk) 22:00, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
That's an incomplete sentence in a parapsychology article because it implies a "common usage" among parapsychologists themselves. The complete sentence would say where the common usage occurs. The complete version would read "Although in popular culture the common usage of the term "psi" does now imply a paranormal quality" and then it becomes apparent why it doesn't belong here, because again, this article is not about popular culture. --Nealparr(talk to me) 22:21, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
It's not incomplete because the "although" implies a contrast between the technical sense and the common usage. Please note that common usage does not equal popular culture (that was just a few examples given above from popular culture and not the be all and end all of the argument), common usage means everyday language. So I'm not just saying that in the film and entertainment industries psi means ESP, I am saying that in common parlance that's what the word now means. And given that readers of wiki use common parlance it would be better to get this point out in the open rather than pretend it doesn't exist.TheLaPesca (talk) 22:30, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
You should also probably note that in the psi article [4] the parapsychological association seems to be using psi as meaning paranormal as well. So it seems that in both common parlance and in parapsychology the term has lost much of neutrality and has now become enmeshed with paranormality. We should probably say, then, that "the word was originally intended to be a neutral term but has now become associated with the paranormal" etc.TheLaPesca (talk) 22:37, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
"Paranormal" itself (means "not explained by science") is "non-suggestive of what causes the phenomena or how it is experienced", so I don't know what the problem is. Extrasensory (implies extra senses) and psychokinesis (implies a connection to the mind) is suggestive, "psi" and even "paranormal" makes no such implications.--Nealparr(talk to me) 23:46, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Alright, I can't make heads or tails out of this discussion? Can someone please offer a definition so we can comment on it? ScienceApologist (talk) 23:09, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't mean to be rude, but the discussion above is rather straightforward. Psi was originally coined as a neutral term for a certain variety of alleged paranormal phenomena (ESP, PK etc.). Neutral, that is, with respect to whether what was going on was in any way paranormal and neutral with respect to any presumptions about the underlying causes. On this point I believe Nealparr and I agree. Over the years though, "psi" has become associated with those alleged phenomena to the extent that in common parlance (I think we both agree here too) and when used by some parapsychologists (Nealparr may well disagree here), the term now implies a degree of parnormality. The point we are debating is whether something needs to be said about this point in the article. I think it does, but Nealparr doesn't. See, simple.TheLaPesca (talk) 23:22, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
That's not true, it's neutral on "what's involved", the same as paranormal is, which is what the line said. Where ESP and PK imply by their wordage that extra senses and the mind are involved, psi and paranormal do not imply anything in particular is involved. --Nealparr(talk to me) 23:46, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I got that. However, I don't know how to translate this discussion into a single sentence for the lead. Do you think that this is possible? Advisable? Have a suggestion? Anything less than a paragraph illumination of the iterations would be useful at this point. I honestly don't have an idea of whether or how a sentence about psi belongs in the lead. See WP:LEAD for more. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:30, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Well I think a sentence about psi definitely belongs in the lead because it's the name of the thing(s) parapsychologists study. What's in there at the moment is OK but, I think, it only tells half the story. And while this is not catastrophic or anything like it, I think it would be better to say "originally coined as a neutral term... ...although it does now tend have paranormal connotations".TheLaPesca (talk) 23:37, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Right now it says:
Parapsychologists call these phenomena psi, a neutral term non-suggestive of what causes the phenomena or experiences.
Change it to:
Parapsychologists call these phenomena psi, a term they feel is non-suggestive of what causes the phenomena or experiences.
What a difference a "they feel" makes. Thanks Neal. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:57, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't mean to prolong this unnecessarily, but it's clear from the psi article that some parapsychologists (the ones at the parapsychological association) do not "feel" that the term is a neutral one and non-suggestive of a paranormal dimension. The point is that the term was originally used in a very specific way, but that no longer holds true for its use in common parlance or, it seems, its use in parapsychology.TheLaPesca (talk) 00:06, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Okay. Can you give us an alternative wording? ScienceApologist (talk) 01:34, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
"Parapsychologists call these phenomena psi, originally coined as a neutral term non-suggestive of what causes the phenomena or experiences, but which now tends to have paranormal connotations." And you can source this to the parapsychological association quote in the psi article.TheLaPesca (talk) 01:43, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Um, this is very unwieldy and has additional concerns as outlined by the two users below. You're going to have to do a little better than this or I'm not sure we can accommodate your concerns. Note that this is a sentence for the lead -- not for the body of the article where we can do more careful descriptions. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:02, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
As I said above: "Paranormal" itself (means "not explained by science") is "non-suggestive of what causes the phenomena or experiences". Extrasensory (implies extra senses) and psychokinesis (implies causation by the the mind) are suggestive of a cause, "psi" and "paranormal" make no claim to a cause.--Nealparr(talk to me) 23:46, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
The term Psi, as far as I have understood, is neutral on regard to the "origin" or the "means" of the phenomenon or experience. The term Psi implies "paranormal" by definition, since it has been first coined, correct?
Here's part of Bem and Honorton's definition (cited by Nealparr above), "The term is purely descriptive: It neither implies that such anomalous phenomena are paranormal nor connotes anything about their underlying mechanisms". Now, you see the bolded section, the section where it says "psi" doesn't imply paranormal. Well, that means that Bem and Honorton don't think the word implies paranormal, and given that both Nealparr and Achillu feel that "psi" always did imply paranormal, it is clear that there is an ambiguity about this term. This is exactly what I have been saying. You can now either choose to say something about this ambiguity, or you can choose to ignore it. I would prefer to say something as per my suggestion above (which I don't feel is unwieldy). You may all decide that no such clarification is needed, or not needed in the lead, or you may even decide (it would not surprise me) that "neither implies that such anomalous phenomena are paranormal" actually means that it does indeed imply paranormal. The half ping-pong ball, as they say, is in your court.TheLaPesca (talk) 17:29, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
(outdent) Hold up, you're missing what I'm saying. The line you have a problem with is this: "Parapsychologists call these phenomena psi, a term they feel is non-suggestive of what causes the phenomena or experiences." You keep saying that because some sources say psi is paranormal and some say psi isn't then there's somehow something wrong with this sentence, but you're either not reading my replies or missing what I'm saying. Paranormal does not suggest a cause. Paranormal simply means "not explained by science". That's all. Whether psi is paranormal or not paranormal, no cause or mechanism is suggested either way, thus there is nothing whatsoever wrong with this line. No parapsychologist suggests that psi implies a mechanism, even when they say it may be paranormal (a term itself non-suggestive of a mechanism). ESP and psychokinesis do suggest a cause ("extra senses" the former and "from the mind" the latter), both imply a mechanism in their wording. You want something put in saying it's usage means it's paranormal, but such a statement is not needed. The sentence before already says "ostensibly paranormal" so that's covered, and psi is "non-suggestive of what causes the phenomena or experiences", so that's covered. The clarification you think it needs is already covered. --Nealparr(talk to me) 18:58, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
How about
Parapsychologists call these things psi, an ambiguous term they feel is non-suggestive of what causes the experiences.
The term itself is not ambiguous. It means anomalous processes. The whole whether or not it is paranormal does not make it ambiguous because that's not part of the definition, and the previous sentence already covers that these things are "ostensibly paranormal". --Nealparr(talk to me) 18:58, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Nealparr, if you look at the "Psi" article, and look at where the two definitions are from firstly Bem and Honerton and then from the parapsychological association, you will see that they are separated by the word "similarly" when this should actually say "differently", because the two definitions are different. Different with respect to whether "psi" implies paranormal - the PA says it does and Bem and Honorton say it doesn't. (The PA says "psi" is "used either as a noun or adjective to identify paranormal processes and paranormal causation", while Bem and Honorton say that the word does not imply "that such anomalous phenomena are paranormal"). This has nothing to do with whether the things called "psi" are in fact paranormal, it has to do with the definition of a word. And those definitions are different. I think we should say something about this.TheLaPesca (talk) 19:23, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
First, this isn't an article about psi, it's an article about parapsychology. It's not supposed to go into all the history of psi, who thinks it means what, and so on. Next, it's already covered. I ask you to read the intro of this article which fully defines "psi". It says: "...ostensibly paranormal events including extra-sensory perception, psychokinesis, and survival of consciousness after death. Parapsychologists call these phenomena psi, a term they feel is non-suggestive of what causes the experiences." Here "psi" is defined as "ostensibly paranormal events including extra-sensory perception, psychokinesis, and survival of consciousness after death that are non-suggestive of what causes the experiences". It summarizes both definitions (paranormal and not paranormal) in one, through "ostensibly". The only thing that really needs to be changed is "events" to "processes". You keep saying "we should say something about this", but it already does. If you want to list off every parapsychologist's feelings about "psi" and what they feel it does and does not suggest, the PA lists 300 of these parapsychologists. The official stance on "what parapsychologists feel" is that it's "non-suggestive of causation". That's in both definitions, and is even sourced to a secondary source, Psychological Bulletin. --Nealparr(talk to me) 19:38, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Firstly, the two definitions I'm talking about aren't "paranormal and non-paranormal" as you suggest. Once you understand that point you might understand the rest of what I'm saying. Secondly, it's strange that your favored introduction should cover both the "paranormal and non-paranormal" definitions when a few minutes ago you claimed that paranormal was not part of the definition at all!. Write what you like.TheLaPesca (talk) 19:59, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
I favor the FA version, not a new version that radically changes the article to include excessive definition of a single term. Paranormal is not a part of the definition given in the Psychological Bulletin which is the secondary source I'm quoting (see what I wrote, not what you think I wrote). I'm responding to your claim that the article needs to be adapted because the PA says something almost the same with a small difference -- "paranormal causation". If you read what I wrote, the addition of paranormal causation does not necessitate a change in our wording because "paranormal causation" does not actually imply a concrete causation (mechanism) and it's already covered by the preceeding sentence. But, no, it's not a part of the definition provided by the Psychological Bulletin, which is what I quoted. --Nealparr(talk to me) 20:05, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Okay, but the FA version is problematic because it doesn't include "they feel" and includes the problematic word "phenomena". Can we at least change it to:
Parapsychologists call these things psi, an ambiguous term they feel is non-suggestive of what causes the experiences.
I don't care if it says "some feel", as long as it's not excessive defining. And I would drop the "ambigous" part because it is defined as "anomalous processes". I would say:
Parapsychologists call these processes psi, a term intended to be descriptive without implying a mechanism for the phenomena.
That's sourced to [Bem, D. J., & Honorton, C. (1994). Does psi exist? Replicable evidence for an anomalous process of information transfer. Psychological Bulletin', 115, 4-18.]
Yes, but that's not a quote and it's not what the source actually says. The source actually says, "[Psi] neither implies that such anomalous phenomena are paranormal nor connotes anything about their underlying mechanisms." What you have provided here is your take on that source which, unsurprisingly, omits the very part of the definition (the part in bold) that changes from one definition to another - the very part of the definition that half of the above discussion is about.TheLaPesca (talk) 20:29, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
My suggested wording is not supposed to be a quote, we've been avoiding those. It is what the source actually says. The source says "The term is purely descriptive: It neither implies that such anomalous phenomena are paranormal nor connotes anything about their underlying mechanisms". My paraphrased summary of that says: "a term intended to be descriptive without implying a mechanism for the phenomena." The preceeding sentence already establishes that it is ostensibly paranormal, which covers the part you're focusing on. My suggested wording summarizes the part that hasn't already been covered. That's what I'm saying about excessive. There's no reason to repeat the first part when it's already covered. --Nealparr(talk to me) 20:50, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Nothing in the article currently suggests any differences across definitions of "psi". The "ostensibly" in the first sentence doesn't/can't do it because it's about three sentences too early to relate to or modify the definition of a term that is introduced, and defined, much later. The "ostensibly" is also there to do a completely different job, it is there solely to mitigate the idea that ESP etc. definitely exist. And even if it was intended to clarify the definition it would be an inappropriate word to clarify the differences in those definitions I am talking about. Anyway, none of this matters because it is clear that you are not willing to tolerate any changes to your article. As I said earlier, write what you like. TheLaPesca (talk) 21:16, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Three sentences too early? It's the very next sentence after the first. The full text would be: "Parapsychology (from the Greek: παρά para, "alongside" + psychology) is the study of ostensibly paranormal events including extra-sensory perception, psychokinesis, and survival of consciousness after death. Parapsychologists call these processes psi, a term intended to be descriptive without implying a mechanism for the phenomena." There's not even three sentences there. Ostensibly doesn't modify ESP, it modifies paranormal. It is "ostensibly paranormal" or it is "ostensibly not explained by science" or "[does not] impl[y] that such anomalous phenomena are paranormal" because it is only "ostensibly paranormal", but likewise might be because it is "ostensibly paranormal" (two definitions bridged through "ostensibly").
It's not my article. It's ScienceApologist's proposed changes. He's the one who is writing it, and I'm explaining the previous version. If you want me to write "what I'd like", stop raising objections, especially those that incorporate phantom sentences that aren't even there (two sentences, not three or more). --Nealparr(talk to me) 21:26, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
One, that's not the text from the article is it - you've conveniently omitted a sentence in the same way you earlier conveniently omitted the very part of the definition I was talking about. Two, nobody claimed "ostensibly" modified "ESP". Let me try one of your tactics: I never claimed it was your article or anything like that.TheLaPesca (talk) 21:47, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
It's the text from ScienceApologist's proposal (see one section below "Revised version"). That's what we're working on. It's his text and my proposal for the second sentence. If you're looking at the current article in the mainspace, that's not what ScienceApologist, nor I, am talking about, and there's no three sentence split there either. On the other stuff, your words: "ostensibly" ... is there solely to mitigate the idea that ESP etc. definitely exist (how's that not claiming that ostensibly modifies ESP?) and it is clear that you are not willing to tolerate any changes to your article (how's that not claiming that it is my article?). I'm done talking to you. Other editors can chime in. I suggested my proposed wording. If you have wording to suggest, propose it. Other editors can figure out what to put in. But there's clearly a communication gap between you and I and I don't have the time for it. --Nealparr(talk to me) 21:54, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
If you don't understand why saying ""ostensibly" ... is there solely to mitigate the idea that ESP etc. definitely exist" does not mean that "ostensibly" mitigates or modifies the meaning of ESP, then I can't help you beyond bolding the "etc" in order to demonstrate the mitigation was about the existence of these type of (ostensibly) paranormal phenomena. I'm not, and never have been, talking about ScienceApologist's proposed changes. I am, and always have been, talking about the addition of a few words to clarify the uses of "psi". If you hadn't realised that then, again, I can't help you.TheLaPesca (talk) 22:04, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Pesca, I wrote that sentence that includes "ostensibly". I chose that word myself months ago, and I'm definitely sure I'm a greater authority on why I choose words than you are. "Ostensibly paranormal" means it "appears to not be explained by science". That's what I meant, and that's what the sentence structure says the article means. That has nothing to do with whether or not it exists. Whether it has a scientific explanation (delusion) or not (paranormal) is why "ostensibly" is there. It is not there to mitigate the existence of ESP etc, and if you feel it does I'm sorry, but I can't help you either. It's all about explanations. It's basic grammar. --Nealparr(talk to me) 22:21, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
It is there to mitigate the existence of ESP etc. You have just said as much. You said, it is there to allow for a "scientific explanation (delusion) or not (paranormal)". The point being that if what is taken to be ESP is merely delusion then ESP does not exist. In other words "ostensibly" mitigates against the definite existence of paranormal phenomena. Even if I wasn't right on that point, which I clearly am, it would also be interesting to note that you have now moved away completely from your claim that "ostensibly" is there somehow to modify the later definition of "psi", which is why we got onto this in the first place. Remember, I said, and still say, it wasn't there for that purpose, while you originally said it was but are now claiming that it wasn't.TheLaPesca (talk) 22:42, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Delusion does not mean non-existant. Delusion is a very real psychological phenomena. It appears (ostensibly) paranormal, but isn't because it has a scientific explanation. ESP doesn't have to be paranormal to exist because it still exists as a delusion. I've always said ostensibly modifies paranormal. Read what I write, not what you think I wrote, and find a better hobby than arguing with people over minutia. --Nealparr(talk to me) 22:58, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
I take that back. I can help you. [5] Now please help me by stopping the waste of my time on silly sidenotes. Maybe you'd enjoy editing Psi (parapsychology) if you're concerned about psi's definition. --Nealparr(talk to me) 22:29, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't think this is a silly sidenote. I think that the intro would benefit from a little clarification about a slippery term that has been introduced and which has, IMO, been only partially defined.TheLaPesca (talk) 22:46, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Well argue with someone else about it. I'm busy. --Nealparr(talk to me) 23:06, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Delusion in this case means non-existent as a paranormal phenomenon. Therefore when you say that the modification by "ostensibly" has nothing to do with existence you are wrong. And we are only arguing about minutia because you have lead this argument all over the place from your claims that this has nothing to do with popular culture (see the first line of your own editing philosophy on your user page for a nice refutation of that point), to a completely false claim that none of the definitions of "psi" on offer mention paranormal (when all of them do), and then onto an argument about the modifying effects of a word in the first sentence which has nothing to do with the third sentence which is what all this was about. The original point is simple: there are various differences in the definitions of "psi" used by parapsychologists and further differences in the usage in common parlance. I think the article could say a little about this. For your part you have denied such differences are relevant (popular culture), then denied they exist (changing the definition for B & H to exclude the part that deviates), and then claimed they are already accounted for (by the use of "ostensibly"). And all this when the really interesting point about why parapsychologists really want to imply nothing about the causes or mechanisms doesn't even seem to feature in the (featured) article.TheLaPesca (talk) 23:16, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
That logic doesn't even make sense. Ostensibly paranormal phenomena, meaning that it "appears" to be paranormal, in no way makes an existential statement because the definition of paranormal is simply "not explained by science". You have to add to the statement (as you did above), to draw a conclusion that "not explained by science" means "non-existent". Such a fallacy would conclude that all the things science had trouble explaining in the past, or haven't gotten around to explaining just yet, likewise don't exist. Did the moon only show up after they formed a theory on how it showed up? You not only misunderstand what I'm saying, you misunderstand what you're saying. --Nealparr(talk to me) 00:38, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
I am not saying it makes "an existential statement". I said "Delusion in this case means non-existent as a paranormal phenomenon", so that point is perfectly valid. For example, if what we call ghosts turn out to be mere hallucinations then ghosts don't exist. The point being that when paranormal is inextricably woven into the definition of a term as it with ESP (and ghosts) then if that phenomenon turns out to have a much more mundane explanation (e.g, delusion) then we conclude that ESP does not exist. If what you were saying was correct then it would make no sense to say "I don't believe in ESP (or ghosts)". But since this obviously makes sense, what you are saying is not correct. And, to deal with your second point: are you saying the moon was ostensibly paranormal before we had a theory on "how it showed up"?TheLaPesca (talk) 01:12, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Also, if all "paranormal" means is "unexplained by science" then there would be thousands of paranormal phenomena accepted by virtually every scientist in the world. There aren't so it doesn't. If P then Q, not Q therefore not P (modus tollens i belive).TheLaPesca (talk) 01:26, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Hate to break it to you bub, but that's what paranormal means [6][7]. And your logic still isn't correct. --Nealparr(talk to me) 05:23, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
There is a difference between "unexplained" and "unexplainable". The same difference as there is between uninhabited and uninhabitable, and unused and unusable. And so, surprise surprise, you have once again changed what sources actually say into something quite different in order to support you incorrect assumptions, bub.TheLaPesca (talk) 18:49, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Oh certainly. And in some parallel dimension of opposites I guess something that is unexplainable is in fact explained. I don't see how I overlooked that before. I should draft up a new paragraph to add to the lead so that readers don't get confused and think that unexplainable means unexplained. I'll need to make sure it incorporates the pop culture use as well, and somehow explain that for the forty-two million adult Americans who can't read it means nothing at all. --Nealparr(talk to me) 19:48, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
There is a fundamental difference between "unexplained" and "unexplainable" - some things that are unexplained may well be unexplainable but many will not be. Go look up a dictionary.TheLaPesca (talk) 20:02, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, and in some parallel dimension that applies here. Like I said, bother someone else with your minutia. --Nealparr(talk to me) 20:11, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
So do you have any objection to the change I am suggesting that isn't based on a simple misunderstanding of the meaning of words - which is sort of important in a definition?TheLaPesca (talk) 20:19, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
You never suggested a specific wording for editors to consider. You spent all your time picking at other editor's wording. --Nealparr(talk to me) 20:29, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Um, right. Plus, I don't think sock puppets of banned editors are allowed to make suggestions. I'm not totally sure about that, so go ahead and make one and other editors can decide. --Nealparr(talk to me) 21:02, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
I've made the suggestion about three times above.TheLaPesca (talk) 21:04, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
I was going to respond and say you didn't mention anything specific, but I guess I don't have to now [8] --Nealparr(talk to me) 06:43, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
TheLaPesca did suggest something specific a few times. This is one of them, "..although in common usage the term [psi] does now imply a paranormal quality", and this is another ""originally coined as a neutral term... ...although it does now tend have paranormal connotations". Seems like if there is some ambiguity about the way this term is used then it really should be defined clearly as per WP:JARGON. Personally, I don't think TheLaPesca's versions are very good because looking at the Bem/Honorton quote and their article it's not very clear what distinction they want to make between "paranormal" and "anomalous". It seems they may be using paranormal in a technical sense which they don't really explain. "Paranormal" itself, of course, having been introduced as a "neutral" term to distinguish it from "supernatural" but which has now become synonymous with it. This all probably means that definitions here should be written by people with a sound background knowledge of the subject and some sensitivity to the subtle changes or nuances in the meanings of words. OoohLimehouse (talk) 15:09, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Pesca said "something like" that, ie. not specific. Sentence fragments are put into a sentence, then the sentence is put into the lead, etc. No complete suggestion was made. --Nealparr(talk to me) 17:20, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't think you can be more specific than by supplying the exact wording, and the only reason it's a fragment is because the rest of the text has already been written and is taken as given. As I said before, however, I don't think the suggestions are very good and I would rather not debate the meaning of "specific" with you as it looks like yet another word where you have your own definition. This leaves us then with a problematic definition of "psi" in the article, some problematic defintions here, and an editor who doesn't understand nuances of meaning acting as a gatekeeper for a version with problems he doesn't understand. Not much room for manoeuvre.OoohLimehouse (talk) 18:26, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
OoohLimehouse, stop parroting Pesca. If you have a suggestion, suggest it as a complete sentence to be used in either the mainspace version or the revised version. --Nealparr(talk to me) 18:30, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
We can start by removing it altogether for being false. That is, according to the introduction the term "psi" refers to various things including "survival of consciousness after death", which, as we all know, it doesn't. So out it must come for that reason alone. Whether it can go back will depend on whether the introduction can be rewritten in such a way as to splice off the various areas of investigation into psi and non-psi, and then on whteher we can come up with a definition clear enough to briefly explain this problematic term. You can do the honours if you like.OoohLimehouse (talk) 19:32, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
It would help if you were more familiar with its usage if you want to go off on how it's misused here. "Strictly speaking 'psi' also applies to survival of death." [9] --Nealparr(talk to me) 20:44, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
I think you mean familiar with it usages! [10] And, e.g., "This brings us to what some may see as the chief rival to the afterlife hypothesis. According to the superpsi hypothesis, no matter how persuasive the evidence for survival, we should always follow the law of parsimony and invoke the super psychic powers of the living to explain apparent survival data." [11] From this it is quite clear that many take "psi" to refer to powers of the living, and those who believe in survival of death would vehemently oppose the description of survival as psi. Psi is contrasted with survival - it is a rival hypothesis, and to say that survival is psi is to present the view of only one particular side. Familiarity with the subject matter would also help.OoohLimehouse (talk) 02:32, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Check the sources again. It says "super-psi" is a hypothesis that explains survival of consciousness. In other words, parapsychologists call survival of consciousness psi. You even wrote that above. Survival to parapsychologists is really just a psychic power -- psi. --Nealparr(talk to me) 02:51, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Wrong on all counts. It doesn't say that and I didn't write it. I wrote "...explain apparent survival data". Which means that the "super-psi" hypothesis is a non-survival hypothesis which explains data that seemingly supports survival in terms of the "super psychic powers of the living". In these cases psi is contrasted with survival. This is what I mean when I say some familiarity with the subject matter would help.OoohLimehouse (talk) 11:21, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
You're a funny guy. You say the line needs to be removed because it doesn't apply to survival studies, I quote the PA that says "Strictly speaking 'psi' also applies to survival of death", and then you quote two references that say the exact same thing -- it applies as an alternative to the survival hypothesis -- and you still jump around doing the happy troll dance. Hey, whatever floats your boat. --Nealparr(talk to me) 11:54, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
(Unindent) Just trying to clear up some inaccuracies in the lead, sorry if that offends you. Anyway, here are some more sources that contrast psi with survival.[12][13][14][15]
And here are a few quotes to finish with:
"the core issue of super-psi versus survival cannot be decisively resolved at the present time. Persons sufficiently determined to deny survival ..."[16],
and,
"as most of you probably know, survivalist interpretations of the evidence compete with so-called "super-psi" explanations"[17].
Hardly a neutral non-suggestive term when used in one of these competing hypotheses.OoohLimehouse (talk) 12:06, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
What this means, in case you don't get it, is that some/many/most parapsychologists use "psi" in contrast to "survival". And those parapsychologists who favour the survival hypothesis would never call the phenomenon of survival by the name "psi" as the lead currently suggests. Re this parapsychological dispute the word is about as un-neutral s it gets. BTW, what's the happy troll dance, and is it anything like the uniformed belligerent gatekeeper dance? OoohLimehouse (talk) 12:12, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
It looks like a troll wearing sock puppets on its hands blabbering about minutia. Minutia, in case you don't get it, is in contrast to notability. You quote survivalist sources talking about "super psi", and yet "super psi" doesn't appear anywhere in the Parapsychological Association's glossary. Instead, they say psi applies to survival of death. What you've got is a bunch of people who don't like that the afterlife can be explained as nothing more than something in a psychic's mind's eye. Call it a neologism if you'd like, or just a bunch of guys who want to believe in an after life (survivalists) no matter what their peers think, but the bottom line is that it's not notable in relation to parapsychology. Parapsychology, in case you don't get it, is the title of the article. The PA says parapsychologist's call it psi, and so does our article that reflects the most notable organization in parapsychology, rather than the fringe of the fringe so to speak. The troll happy dance is what you did to get banned. As a banned editor, you don't really get a say at Wikipedia. --Nealparr(talk to me) 12:32, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
It isn't survivalist literature. Within parapsychology the super-psi explanation for seeming survival data is one hypothesis (although, I believe, most parapsychologists don't really like it). To claim that all parapsychologists call survival psi is to grossly misrepresent the situation. A situation that goes back to at least the 1920s when the issue arose (although it was called the super-ESP hypothesis then). But then you already know all this. Right?OoohLimehouse (talk) 13:35, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
I think the important thing here is to get down to actual verifiable academic sources and not personal interpretations. Can you give us a number to look at?? --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 05:05, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
He's a banned editor Lucy who was just here trolling: User:OoohLimehouse The source here is the British Journal of Psychology (when the term was coined) and to a lesser degree the Parapsychological Association. We hashed all of it out over two years of writing the Featured Article. I have expertise in this area. --Nealparr(talk to me) 06:35, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Not sure how far Nealparr's expertise extends, but the SPR (the oldest parapsychological organisation in the world) seem to support the idea that "psi" does not include survival:
Mental interactions are grouped under the term Extrasensory Perception (ESP) and include telepathy (direct mind-to-mind communication), clairvoyance (awareness of information unavailable through normal sensory channels) and precognition (foreseeing the future).
Interactions which affect the environment or other organisms physically are referred to as psychokinesis (PK). Large-scale physical disturbances which occur naturally and are generally referred to as poltergeists (from German meaning 'mischievous spirit') have also been described as RSPK (recurrent spontaneous psychokinesis), while micro-PK, involving minute effects, is and has been the subject of a number of experimental studies. Both ESP and PK are frequently subsumed under the more general term psi.
Phenomena suggestive of survival of death, which have been part of the research since its beginnings, are nowadays often referred to as After-Death Communications (ADC). Near-death experiences (NDE), reported by some people who nearly died, and out-of-body experiences (OBE), a state reported by some people of having conscious exeriences while feeling separated from their bodies, are also areas studied in parapsychology and psychical research [18]
And in their glossary, "psi" is said to cover all types of PK and ESP but survival is not included - it is defined later on and it isn't described as a form of psi. [19]BlindPhew (talk) 13:23, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, there is an absence of an inclusion there, but an inclusion at the Parapsychological Association. An absence of an inclusion is a little different than an exclusion, but it's just a simple sentence anyway. Like I told LaPesca and OoohLimehouse feel free to suggest an alternative wording. --Nealparr(talk to me) 15:09, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Parapsychological research involves a variety of methodologies, including laboratory research and fieldwork, which is conducted at privately funded laboratories and some universities around the world, though there are fewer universities actively sponsoring parapsychological research today than in years past.[1] Such research has been published in specialized parapsychological publications, though a smaller number of articles on parapsychological research have also appeared in more mainstream journals. Experiments conducted by parapsychologists have included the use of random number generators to test for evidence of psychokinesis, sensory-deprivation Ganzfeld experiments to test for extra-sensory perception, and research trials conducted under contract to the United States government to investigate the possibility of remote viewing.
Scientists such as Ray Hyman and James Alcock, among others, are critical of both the methodology used and the results obtained by parapsychology. Skeptical researchers suggest that methodological flaws provide the best explanation for apparent experimental successes, rather than the anomalistic explanations offered by many parapsychologists. Critics have also argued that parapsychology crosses the line into pseudoscience.[2] To date, no evidence has been accepted by the scientific community as establishing the existence of paranormal phenomena. Active parapsychologists have themselves admitted difficulty in getting scientists to accept their research[3] while science educators label the subject a pseudoscience.[4][5]
^Layton, David (1974). Studies in Science Education. University of Leeds, Centre for Studies in Science Education.
^Austin, David F. "Parapsychology". PHI 340: Philosophy of Science. North Carolina State University. Retrieved 2008-02-11.
Anaylsis of the lead
Fine by me on the whole. Though I don't like the ref to mainstream scientific community. Scientifc communiy is fine without qualification, a few outliers notwithstanding. Mccready (talk) 03:09, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I agree. So changed. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:39, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Happy to oblige. We're still left with the revert, which I'll refrain from re-inserting yet:
The Parapsychological Association says "Many scientists have viewed parapsychology with great suspicion because the term has come to be associated with a huge variety of mysterious phenomena, fringe topics, and pseudoscience."[1] Science educators say it is a pseudoscience. [20][21]
I'm not convinced by arguments that this should have been deleted. Over to the community to discuss. Mccready (talk) 14:51, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Your change is superceded by SA's change as he incorporated the same idea in a summary style. In other words, if one is implemented then the other is obsolete. --Nealparr(talk to me) 02:46, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, let's sit on this for a bit longer and allow Neal to give his input. I think that, ideally, we can just replace the old lead with the new lead and everyone will be happy. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:56, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Also, I can understand Neal's point for not wanting quotes in the lead. I'm not a fan of the appeal to direct attribution myself. Please see User:ScienceApologist#Description for more on this. Quotes, in general, should not be used as a way to get around plain summary statements. It's tempting to do this because no one can argue with a quote, but it's really poor form for a tertiary source to simply rely on quotations.ScienceApologist (talk) 14:59, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
That's about as good as they come when
The Parapsychological Association recognizes that "Many scientists have viewed parapsychology with great suspicion because the term has come to be associated with a huge variety of mysterious phenomena, fringe topics, and pseudoscience."[2] Science educators say it is a pseudoscience. [22][23]
Include it. -- Fyslee / talk 15:31, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
I think we should include it later in the article, certainly. I don't know about the lead. We use it as a source for a summary statement in the lead, but I'd rather summarize there. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:34, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Also, the "science educators" statement is better sourced with the references I listed above. I think that Biology Cabinet might not be the best source (they think that global warming is pseudoscience, for example), but certainly the philosophy class is a good exemplar of how parapsychology is taught in college courses. What do you think of the proposed lead with the option of including the quote in the body of the article? ScienceApologist (talk) 15:35, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
The BIOCAB source is pretty hopeless - they not only think Global Warming is Pseudoscience, they also think naturism is as well???? They also include a section on how to get rid of a swallow infestation [24]. The other source does seem excellent though. Unfortunately it is arguing that parapsychology IS NOT pseudoscience. See, for example, the full page cited (especially the conclusion, "So despite its relative conceptual disarray, the doubts of some about the possibility of paranormal phenomena, and the statistical mistakes of some of its investigators, parapsychology seems especially difficult to rule out, on principled grounds, as pseudoscience"). It seems some here have been misled by the rhetorical devices where parapsychology is stated to be pseudoscience because of X, Y and Z, but which are followed swiftly by total rejections of X, Y and Z. For a nice summary of this, see the matrix attached to the source which lists the claims about parapsychology that are discussed on the cited page and which are clearly identified as a) unfair, and b) not generalising appropriately. [25] As noted, an excellent source but quite at odds with what it was intended to be the source for. Perhaps the source still should be used though to support the contention that science educators do not regard parapsychology as a pseudoscience.213.253.135.119 (talk) 17:33, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't mind the quotation, but the last sentence "Science educators say it is a pseudoscience." has to go. One of its sources is lousy, and the other one needs to be properly represented, not cherry-picked per above post. Also, we need to accurately represent the sources avaliable. In that case, a sentence saying something like "Most critical reviewers say parapsychology is not a pseudoscience," can be extremely well sourced. We aren't here to cherry pick the sources, which is what people are trying to do. Randi, Hyman, Wiseman, Alcock and others, for example Beyerstein above, are all on record here. ——Martinphi☎ Ψ Φ—— 00:33, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
The sources clearly say it is pseudoscience. This is important because it is how it is presented in science classes. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:25, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Lol. The source also says global warming is pseudoscience. ——Martinphi☎ Ψ Φ—— 05:26, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Lol. That source isn't being used. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:00, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Ok, but then it must be "Layton, David (1974). Studies in Science Education. University of Leeds, Centre for Studies in Science Education" Surely you aren't recommending a single 34 year old source for that? And -if so- would you at least mind giving the quotation? The other source must be taken out, as -unless I am wrong- it says nothing about "science educators," and is making the point that parapsychology is not pseudoscience. ——Martinphi☎ Ψ Φ—— 23:42, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Problems with the revised lead
Here's the problems I see with this draft:
The language "the study of ostensibly paranormal influences in psychology" is unwieldy and certainly not an improvement over what is there now. 'On human behavior' might be a good substitute for 'in psychology', but the current version really does a fine job of framing the subject.
Saying that "parapsychologists call these subjects psi" is simplistic, then using the reference from the current lead is a misattribution. Psi is not esp, psychokinesis, and etc. It is a neutral term that neither implies that such anomalous phenomena are paranormal nor connotes anything about their underlying mechanisms.
Since the lead is supposed to outline the structure of the article, criticisms of parapsychology should really be in the last paragraph of the lead. Therefore, the last sentence of the first paragraph should return to where it was in the original.
In the second paragraph 'to a lesser extent' needs to be removed or sourced.
In the next sentence, 'isolated' articles needs to be removed or sourced. Let's not forget that research on paranormal belief, and research disproving paranormal influences on human behavior is still parapsychological research.
I think it is important to reference the major publications in the field as well as the mainstream publications that routinely publish parapsychological research.
Removing all discussion of meta-analysis weakens the lead because there is much discussion of meta-analysis in the body of the article.
The last sentence of this revised lead is redundant. Two sentences before, it already says that critics regard it as pseudoscience.
I have it on good authority that this particular user is being paid to advocate here like this. As such, her contributions need to be taken with a grain of salt. Nevertheless, here are some responses to her attempts to scuttle the revision:
The current lead is unwieldy and uses equivocal language. Parapsychology does more than analyze "human behavior" as well.
We can excise the "psi" bit completely if that pleases you. Frankly, we are supposed to avoid neologisms anyway.
Since parapsychology is, in point of fact, generally dismissed by the communities it is trying to embrace, it is important to be up front about this and frame it.
We need to appropriately frame how marginalized parapsychology is. I tried to address the concerns about the balance between the two ideas. The point is that there is less research at universities than elsewhere.
Ibid. Also, many people who study paranormal belief do not consider themselves "parapsychologists" in the proper sense. Just because the parapsychological associations wants to include them doesn't mean that we need to be their mouthpiece for this POV.
"Major publications" is only in the opinion of the parapsychological association. We are not its mouthpiece.
Meta-analysis is not relevant to parapsychology itself and doesn't frame the subject.
The last sentence is important because it illustrates that science educators think the subject is bunk.
You already raised that objection at COI/N and nothing came of it because it was ultimately meritless. As you recall, I pointed out that Annalisa being awarded grants for research is not the same as being paid to market (advocate). As for all the other points and counter-points, I give up : ) It's the same conversations over and over and the only way for me to truly end the redundancy on my end is to unwatchlist the thing, which is what I'm going to do now. You guys can work it out. --Nealparr(talk to me) 02:46, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm not going to get into it, but basically Annalisa does get paid to monitor the internet on parapsychology. Notice that she swooped in yesterday after being gone for months. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:36, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
No, Annalisa doesn't have any COI problems. Certainly less than one would have if one were, say, paid to work in mainstream science. It is anyway irrelevant even if she does, as her editing is NPOV, and WP does not proscribe COI editing if NPOV.
Psi is not a neologism.
People like Randi are not included in the Parapsychological Association, but by definition, if they study the paranormal, they are parapsychologists. Just as one is an astronomer if one studies the stars, whether or not one likes to be called that.
As to number 6, you'd have to source that.
Number 7: Half of modern parapsychology is based on meta-analysis.
I think the current lead is rather well phrased, and makes quite clear that parapsychology is not mainstream, and that it studies the paranormal, which is by definition not accepted by mainstream science. As a general comment, it is a shame that those who ostensibly think that experts should be given preference do not live up to their word. ——Martinphi☎ Ψ Φ—— 00:25, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
This is all bogus. Psi is a neologism by any normal definition. People who study paranormal belief include the amazing Randi: is he a parapsychologist? And there is no cite to a neutral source that states that half of parapsychology is based on meta-analysis. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:36, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
A neologism is a recently created term that hasn't caught on and doesn't have widespread use. "Psi" was coined in 1942 and is used by all parapsychologists. --Nealparr(talk to me) 19:39, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
What do parapsychologists mean when they say "psi"? The wording that was presented before didn't help. Can you reword it for us? ScienceApologist (talk) 19:49, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
ScienceApologist, as you know, there has already been a discussion into whether Annalisa has any conflict of interest, and it was rejected. Just because the discussion did not end up in your favor does not mean that you can ignore it and continue to claim that an editor has a conflict of interest. Please retract that statement in your responses. GlassCobra 03:09, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
No, it wasn't rejected: it was discussed and people with certain *ahem* biases went out of their way to claim that she didn't have a conflict of interest when in fact she does. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:36, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
You can't accuse everyone who disagrees with you of having a bias. This issue has been brought up to the community and been rejected; unless you want to be blocked for personal attacks, please retract that statement in your responses. GlassCobra 18:32, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Glass, I don't accuse everyone who disagrees with me of having a bias. I'm accusing Annalisa of having a personal bias and a charge with keeping parapsychology presented a particular way at this encyclopedia. She is clearly listed on the PA pages. Mischaracterizing my posts as you are doing is inappropriate and rude. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:13, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
You are the only person mischaracterizing anything here. You say you don't accuse everyone who disagrees with you of having a bias, yet you contradict yourself above by stating that "people with certain biases" prevented you from exposing Annalisa's supposed COI. I will ask you again to strike your statements about her. GlassCobra 19:18, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
You just implied that I'm accusing everyone who disagrees with me of having a bias. That's a mischaracterization. Do you deny you said it? Yes, people with certain biases did prevent me from exposing Analisa's COI. That doesn't mean that everyone who opposes me has a bias. I'll ask you to strike-through your comments. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:22, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
I do not deny that I said it, because it absolutely does seem to be an overwhelming pattern with you. I do not believe I've seen anyone disagree with you without you accusing them of having a bias. And before I strike anything, I'm still waiting for you to strike your unfounded accusations about Annalisa. GlassCobra 19:37, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry you have decided to pick a vendetta with me. You aren't a parent and you have not monitored all my contributions. I can point to a lot of editors who have had disagreements with me who do not have a bias. User:Art Carlson comes to mind. So, I'd appreciate if you stop with the WP:KETTLE. My accusations are founded. People may disagree that they represent a legitimate COI concern, but it is a fact that she is associated with PA and was paid to promote parapsychology on the internet. I will not back down from my opinion just because you don't like it. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:49, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
I can't believe you're still relying on the same sources for the "pseudoscience" claim. The BIOCAB source is hopeless and the academic source supports the contrary point that parapsychology IS NOT a pseudoscience.213.253.135.119 (talk) 17:17, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
No one is using BIOCAB anymore. Did you read the version that is up? ScienceApologist (talk) 17:26, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
But the other source, Austin, is arguing that various reasons for thinking parapsychology is pseudoscience are bunk. He treats each reason in turn, by saying, for example, "parapsychology is pseudoscience because X", and then REJECTS "X". It's what his article is about. His conclusion is that "parapsychology seems especially difficult to rule out, on principled grounds, as pseudoscience".213.253.135.119 (talk) 17:37, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
"Principled grounds" is the key. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:13, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Continuing our discussion from yesterday:
"the study of ostensibly paranormal influences in psychology" reads like 'the study of....in the field of psychology'. There are better ways to phrase this so that it doesn't sound like researchers should be taking their magnetometers to psychology buildings around the world.
Psi is 60 year old term that is central to subject of this article. And even if it did please me excise the statement, I wouldn't ask you to remove a sourced statement from an FA on a whim.
The marginal status of parapsychology is already well framed in the lead. The only difference between your version and the current version is that in the current version, each paragraph actually has a topic with supporting sentences.
If you really think that there is less parapsychological research coming from universities than private laboratories, then you need to support that claim with a reference. Otherwise, what you are saying is original research.
Ibid. And if you browse the CV's of PA members, you will find the variety of approaches that I described above.
What? Parapsychology is an area of specialization in psychology, there are publications that are central to that sub-field. They are discussed in the lead, as they are in the rest of the article, and that's the way it should stay.
Whether or not you believe meta-analysis is relevant here, the bulk of this article discusses meta-analytic studies in parapsychology and the criticism section has a good bit to say about it as well. Thus it needs to be introduced in the lead.
The last sentence is too specific for the lead. If you want to discuss what science educators have to say about parapsychology, put it in the criticism section. They same goes for any other sub-population that you might care to discuss.
Finally, I am not impressed with your attempt to subvert my argument by attacking me personally and spreading lies about me on this talk page. I am not a paid to advocate here. We have already discussed this. You failed to prove your point then, and that's not going to change now. If you continue to attempt to assassinate my character here with lies and personal attacks, I will take the appropriate action. You have been warned. --Annalisa Ventola(Talk | Contribs) 17:54, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Annalisa, you are in the employ of PA and are known for monitoring pages on parapsychology. All you have to do is simply ask them to remove you from their website and this allegation will go away. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:09, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
SA, it almost seems as if you are purposefully baiting Annalisa at this point, and I will warn you yet again that this is not acceptable. It has already been proven that Annalisa has no COI in this matter; please stop your insinuations and personal attacks. GlassCobra 19:18, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, glass, but there has been no "proof" offered. You're simply wrong on this one. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:23, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
The burden of "proof" would be on you to prove that she has any sort of conflict here; so far all we have is your unfounded accusations. I'm still waiting for you to remove your attacks. GlassCobra 19:28, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
The accusations are founded and well-presented. This is not a courtroom and I am under no obligation to offer proof before a judge/jury. I am simply pointing out that Annalisa has a problematic on-line history and her contributions need to be weighed accordingly. We can read them and accept them with their appropriate grain of salt. You, on the other hand, have pointed to no policy infractions other than vaguely claiming that pointing out someone's COI when others disagree it is a COI is somehow a personal attack. Except there is nothing on that page that even looks remotely like what is going on here. What I am offering is not an attack: it is pointing out that Annalisa is not necessarily neutral and has a potential conflict of interest as she is in the employ of PA. That is all. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:31, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
I am not employed by the PA, nor am I employed by any organization in the field of parapsychology. I have already made my point at the conflict of interested board in November. You are making accusations without proof. Since you continue to insist on making false statements about me, I have no choice but to act. Game on. --Annalisa Ventola(Talk | Contribs) 20:45, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
That's not what I have in mind. Your personal attacks will be reported. --Annalisa Ventola(Talk | Contribs) 22:18, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Continuing our discussion from yesterday:
I have rephrased it. Did you read the rephrasing?
Psi is 60 year old term that is central to subject of this article. Psi is a neologism. It may be worthy of including in our article, but in the lead? I don't thinks so.
The marginal status of parapsychology is already well framed in the lead. No it isn't. The lead needs to give us the marginalized status up front since that is one of the main features of this discipline.
And if you browse the CV's of PA members, you will find the variety of approaches that I described above. Doesn't matter since there are some X who are not Y we cannot say all Y are X.
Parapsychology is an area of specialization in psychology, there are publications that are central to that sub-field. No, it is a bunch of rank amateurs trying to study the paranormal. That's what it is. That's the end of it.
the bulk of this article discusses meta-analytic studies in parapsychology and the criticism section has a good bit to say about it as well. Thus it needs to be introduced in the lead. No it doesn't. The article uses meta-analyses because that's what the sources are. However, parapsychology itself has nothing to do with meta-analysis.
The last sentence is too specific for the lead. Nonsense. Science educators' opinions are a notable group commenting on how absolutely bone-headed most parapsychology proponents are. We should include them in the lead.
The last sentence may be too specific or not specific enough or whatever. As things stand though it is unsourced. The science educators cited (Austin and Layton, see above) do not even make the claim in their articles that parapsychology is pseudoscience, and therefore cannot possibly support, or be used as sources for, the contention that this is the view of science educators as a whole.TheLaPesca (talk) 20:51, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
I wholly disagree. These two sources do indicate that this subject is generally labeled pseudoscience by science educators. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:58, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Well it is very unclear how they manage to "indicate" any such thing. Let us focus on the Austin source. This article is very clear. It sets out three possible reasons for thinking parapsychology is a pseudoscience and then rejects them one by one. At no stage does it suggest any other grounds for so labeling the "field of study" - the rejected reasons are the only three reasons examined. And while there may be other reasons and there may be others who put them forward and others still who claim science educators view parapsychology as a pseudoscience; Austin, in this article, does not give any such reasons and does not make any such suggestion.TheLaPesca (talk) 21:33, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
The new lead does not have consensus. I am unconvinced that there is anything wrong with the present lead. In addition, cherry picking sources to push a particular POV- for instance using a source which argues that parapsychology is not a pseudoscience to selectively source the statement that it is called pseudoscience by some- isn't kosher. In generaly it is not called pseudoscience. It is already well framed, and this is a featured article. ——Martinphi☎ Ψ Φ—— 23:47, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
More stonewalling. Wonderful. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:55, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
To Martinphi - If what was being done was using Austin to show that "some think parapsychology is pseudoscience", then that would probably be OK. I mean, Austin himself probably didn't just dream up the reasons he goes on to reject or the view itself - somebody probably said these things at some point and holds this view. But one cannot just assume that Austin's rhetorical interlocutors are science educators. That is, the article already says that "some critics have argued that parapsychology crosses the line into pseudoscience" so it may well be those critics Austin has in mind. So Austin is the "science educator" here, and he says "no". Yes?
To ScienceApologist - Come now, you're the one claiming that a source says something that it clearly doesn't. See the response just above to Martinphi and let us try to get to the bottom of this. Are you claiming that Austin is a science educator who thinks parapsychology is pseudoscience, or are you claiming that Austin is saying that other science educators hold this view? [User:TheLaPesca|TheLaPesca]] (talk) 00:00, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
I simply think that the new lead is POV. It has a huge focus on pseudoscience, etc. etc. The current lead is a consensus lead in a featured article, and I see only one author wishing to change it wholesale- and another suggesting a change which was partly OK by me. On the whole, perhaps we should ask for mediation if necessary, and come out with a neutral sounding lead. But as I said before, I think that the current lead is a sound compromise. Parapsychology is not pseudoscience, and the main commentators thereon, and its main critics, say so. So if we're going to change the current lead, I think we need to make clear that while parapsychology has been criticized as pseudoscience and is sometimes dismissed by science educators, its main critics and commentators such as James Randi say that it cannot be dismissed as pseudoscience on methodological grounds, whatever one may think of its results. This -however phrased- is the statement and general tone justified by the sources. A derogatory tone and the cherry picking of the content of sources to form that tone is not justified. ——Martinphi☎ Ψ Φ—— 01:12, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, and I think that's perfectly reasonable point - sorry if I didn't make that clear. But we don't even need to go down that road until we have a source saying otherwise which, at this stage, we don't appear to have.TheLaPesca (talk) 01:46, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Oh, right. It does seem to be true that as with most claims of consensus and generality, it is very difficult to source. I don't think there is a good source for "science educators," -and wouldn't one need a source merely to designate such a non-standard grouping?- nor is there any source that the scientific community in general says parapsychology is pseudoscience- quite the reverse. There are other problems as well of course. ——Martinphi☎ Ψ Φ—— 05:23, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Clean-up
Almost a month later and a few blocked socks and some cool-down, I've reinstated my version of the lead. There may still be some outstanding issues, but I believe all the legitimate complaints of Annalisa and Nealparr were addressed. I also added another source for the science educators sentence which I believe is a very important statement. There probably should be a section in the article devoted to this anyway. ScienceApologist (talk) 01:14, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
I believe you didn't get consensus for it. As the above talk says, most people did not agree with your version of this featured article. ——Martinphi☎ Ψ Φ—— 03:25, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, I have tried to weight Analisa's concerns as best I could and I think Neal's ideas were all taken into account. Let's dismiss the half-dozen Davkal socks and look what remains. Mccready and you. Hmm... I'm going to call that consensus. ScienceApologist (talk) 03:30, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
You were asked to discuss first on the talk page. I doubt your edits will meet with consensus, and they do seem to be POV pushing. However, if Annalisa and Nealparr accept your edits, so will I. It was my impression, however, that your edits did not meet with consensus before, and I don't see why that would change. ——Martinphi☎ Ψ Φ—— 03:52, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Without removing SA's contributions, I cleaned them up to be less editorialized. This source:
<ref name=shorthistory>{{cite web|last=Carroll|first=Robert Todd|title=A Short History of Psi Research|url=http://www.skepdic.com/essays/shorthistory.pdf|accessdate=2007-03-10|publisher=Carroll, author of ''[[The Skeptic's Dictionary]]'', wrote this essay documenting the disassociation of various universities with parapsychology including [[Harvard University|Harvard]], [[Stanford University|Stanford]], [[Duke University|Duke]], [[Washington University in St. Louis]], and [[Princeton University|Princeton]]}}</ref>
...doesn't say what the note said it did. If there's a quote I'm missing, I apologize, but what I read doesn't discuss a "disassociation" from universities. Rather, it talks about historical associations with universities. It's also completely unnecessary as the decline of academic ties is already sourced to Nature, which is more reliable (less biased) than an editorial by Carrol. --Nealparr(talk to me) 09:58, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
We'll have some discussions about some of the edits later, but for now I'll let things settle. In particular, I think that the lead should be more summary-style than what you included and the Carroll cite is well-paraphrased (each and every one of those universities is listed as once having an affiliation with parapsychology but no longer having an affiliation). These are things that can get ironed out later. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:07, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Nealparr, I believe your changes made it NPOV, and probably better than it was before. ——Martinphi☎ Ψ Φ—— 02:26, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Whatever concepts need to be in the article, or wording used to reflect those concepts, it needs to continue to meet the WP:FACR criteria. --Nealparr(talk to me) 08:08, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Recent edits
For the record, recent back and forth editing appear to be a case of personal preference and do not affect overall neutrality, style, etc. Please don't liter the FA article with tags like in the past. Thanks. --Nealparr(talk to me) 00:52, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
I certainly won't. However, taking out the word "phenomenon" without consensus here or at WTA is improper. Also, making a statement sound as if it is general when it is specific to a particular body is not correct. So, this is more than personal preference. If it were merely preference, there would be no debate, nor would SA be so intent on it. I changes the attribution status of the article. It also changes the normal way in which these things are talked about, by eliminating the word phenomenon, and purely out of one editor's POV, when there is a general consensus that use of the word is ok. ——Martinphi☎ Ψ Φ—— 03:10, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
At what point would you think generalization is acceptable? For your taste, if several other educators or groups of educators had statements like that of the California group, would that be enough to drop the specific group's name? If so, then it's just a matter of finding the sources. If not, where would you set the bar? Antelantalk 17:40, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
I think Martin should be aware that his advocacy here is approaching disruption. Antelan makes an important point: it is generally considered pseudoscience by a variety of educators. I had two additional excellent sources for this ascribing by various groups in the business of science education that were removed by Martin. So we have the evidence beyond just CA education standards. Seriously, Martin needs to stop ignoring and start dealing with the fact that parapsychology is scoffed at in the same mainstream academic communities with which it is trying to claim membership. Also, Martin's personalizing of this nonsense is ridiculous. Why can't we just get rid of him? He shouldn't be editing at Wikipedia any more. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:15, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't recall exactly which sources those were, but I believe by the standards of Wikipedia they were bad- else why would they be gone. Generalization in leads is acceptable if they reflect the article. However, ScienceApologist's addition to the lead is not from the article, nor does it reflect it, but is an addition specifically created for the lead alone. The lead is supposed to summarize the article. So this is not approprate editing. Nor is edit warring your changes. Nor is carring your edit war at WTA to this article appropriate. ——Martinphi☎ Ψ Φ—— 18:44, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
No, by WP:PARITY, in fact, they were better quality than most of the bullshit passing for sources currently in the article. They were links to course webpages for introductory classes in college on pseudoscience, for example. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:55, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Brokering a compromise: How about generalizing the educator's statement and dropping the "phenomena" removal? The former has a decent justification, and the latter is not really justified at all. The rationale for generalizing the CBoEd is that it's not like it's one single person that the statement can be attributed to, which is what we are supposed to do, but rather (presumably) an unbiased neutral board of education comprised of a general consensus in California's education system. The rationale for removing phenomena is... nothing at all. It's sourced, we've argued about it to no end and there's been no real justification for removing it, etc. etc. Sounds like a compromised to me. Everything's justified. --Nealparr(talk to me) 19:11, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia is international, and much of parapsychology is international. We attribute, because the source isn't about education in the world, isn't about education in the United States, isn't about federal policy..... it's about the BOA of one large state among 50 in one nation of the world. Thus, attribution. However, I really see no reason to have it in there at all. Where is it in the rest of the article? Write it into the article, if it's notable (which it isn't), then write it into what is supposed to be a summary of the article. No deal, not what Wikipedia is about. ——Martinphi☎ Ψ Φ—— 01:44, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
That's more of a good point, rather than an obstacle: that info should also be in the main article, and not only in the lead. But what do you think of Nealparr's compromise? If you won't agree to his compromise, feel free to respond to my question, which will help us understand how to achieve a compromise. Antelantalk 03:56, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Neal, why should we include "phenomena" which is the wording of choice of the people who believe in the idiocy of parapsychology? After all, omitting the term does not remove the meaning. ScienceApologist (talk) 03:59, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
You guys crack me up : )
@SA - It's a compromise, that's why. It should be an easy compromise too, because it's a word used by both sides of the aisle.
@Martinphi & Antelan - Don't you guys pay attention? I added it to the body of the article weeks ago. Do a "Find on Page" with your browser.
@Martinphi - How about if I find another resource, not from California, that says the same thing? You know I'm pretty resourceful. How would that fit in there? Is it enough that it's attributed in the body of the article?
Try a new compromise, Neal. I don't like it. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:12, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, look, unlike in ages past where I wasted countless hours trying to pacify irrational editing practices, I'm not doing that these days. I was trying to avoid ugly scare templates on a featured article. But since we have that anyway, my work here is done. --Nealparr(talk to me) 16:51, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
I confess that I don't pay attention... but in my defense, I was only really here to try to diffuse some tension between Martinphi and ScienceApologist. I backed away from substantially editing this page months ago! Antelantalk 04:43, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Protected
Please resolve this war over the three ensuing days of full protection, during which no edits should be made to the article. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 09:32, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
I propose keeping the article at the current version. Any objections? ScienceApologist (talk) 21:59, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Honestly, Martinphi is closer to policy on this one, so yes the previous version is more Wikipedia compatible. Specifically where Martinphi is right is the "mass attribution" section of WP:ASF, part of the core NPOV policy. To wit: "A reliable source supporting that a group holds an opinion must accurately describe how large this group is." Should have compromised ; ) --Nealparr(talk to me) 00:18, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
No, you're wrong. We have plenty of sources that do what we need. Plus, we are talking about "a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute". Martin's objections aren't "serious". They're amateurish and parochial. A good dose of WP:CLUE is needed. Take your compromise and smoke it. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:21, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
No Smoking CompromisesWP:CLUE? We weren't voting on anything. You asked if there were any objections, and I pointed out that the objection is raised by WP:ASF. The serious dispute part isn't the objection -- no one seriously disputes that science educators have called the subject pseudoscience. It's reliably and unbiasedly sourced, better than many things are sourced on Wikipedia. But that wasn't the objection. Martinphi's objection was that it's not attributed properly in your change. WP:ASF's coverage of the "mass attribution" problem appears to agree with him, as in after your change it's ambiguous on how many science educators refer to it as pseudoscience. Obviously not all of them do.
So there's the reason to revert. You still haven't explained why your change has merit. --Nealparr(talk to me) 16:18, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
That's right, Neal. We're not voting on anything. I am fine with you stating an "objection", but your appeal to "you should have compromised" is in violation of the spirit of !voting. It's just a "TOLDYA SO" objection that I find rude and unmistakeably condescending. Moreover, the point of WP:ASF is that there has to be a serious dispute. I pointed out that there is no serious dispute about the fact that science educators consider parapsychology to be little more than worthless. Proper attribution to singular sources should not be used to try to marginalized general criticism. I have a principle that outlines this: it's the appeal to particular attribution. In fact, I'm going to insert it into WP:FRINGE very soon because we have agreement in an archived talk page that this is a problem -- and here it is rearing its ugly head. Time to put this probem in perspective by placing it in the fringe guideline. "Mass attribution" is proper because it is the minority trying to puff themselves up. This is being resisted. The change has merit simply because it is factual and correct and avoids POV-pushing. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:16, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
"Should have compromised" does not equal "Told ya so". "Should have compromised" = "Would have been easier". --Nealparr(talk to me) 03:25, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't see agreement in that thread, and anyway it doesn't apply here. You have a source for one BOA, in one state. There is an academic presense of parapsychology in a lot of places. Summary style is about major themes in the articles- and thus again doesn't apply here. Your example on the Fringe talk page archive is good, but it doesn't apply here, because there is no sourced consensus among BOAs that parapsychology is pseudoscience. Nor is this a major theme in the article. In fact, you're the only person that even thinks it's notable enough to be in there. Looks to me that mention of that BOA thing is already a major compromise. ——Martinphi☎ Ψ Φ—— 21:34, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Martin, there is not an academic presence of parapsychology in the mainstream academic world. Maybe in the universities you studied at there was an active parapsychology department, but the degradation of parapsychology to the status of pseudoscience has been inexorable and is well-documented in the literature. The consensus is obvious: find me a "BOA" or a mainstream intro science course or indeed any academic treatment of the subject outside the parochial purview of pychic believers' networks that has parapsychology guidelines listed as a standard for science ed that does not demarcate parapyschology as a pseudoscience. One example will do the trick. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:56, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
That seems to be a contradiction about academic presence. But anyway, I don't have to prove my point, because I'm not asserting anything. You have to prove the point that you can generalize to all science educators. And that they're notable in this article. And that one sentence in the article is enough for inclusion in the lead. Lots of proving. ——Martinphi☎ Ψ Φ—— 03:17, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
I think Wikipedia talk:Fringe theories#Appeal to particular attribution is a good place to discuss this and get some outside opinions, so I added the context of this dispute there, neutrally I'm sure we can agree. The neutral context of this "case example" is in that section. I do, however, disagree completely with the clause that was added to WP:FRINGE, and said as much in the section above. I'm separating the issues here -- wouldn't want SA adding a clause in the middle of a dispute and saying it applies to the dispute to be perceived as gaming the system. It's not gaming the system because there are three separate issues here: 1) How to address appeals to a particular authority, 2) Which wording to use here, and 3) Is this an example of an appeal to a particular authority? I neutrally described the situation here separately from my comments about #1 and #3 on that page. --Nealparr(talk to me) 03:46, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
The CBE may be taken as an acceptable proxy for the general view of educators, barring conflicting sources from other major educators' groups that have taken an alternative stance. If you think there are major educators' groups that disagree, sources would be helpful. I don't think there is controvery here; there is certainly no need for us to manufacture any or to pretend like the CBE's stance is the exception rather than the rule. Antelantalk 07:26, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Like I told SA above, it's not like every science educator shares that view ("mass attribution"). For example, Coventry University (accredited and reputable) offers a Master of Science course in transpersonal psychology and parapsychology.[26][27] As the parapsychology article indicates, the UK has a more tolerant view of the topic than perhaps the US has. What would you say to Martinphi's contention that using a California source has geographic issues? This is what I meant about compromises. It can get very complicated. --Nealparr(talk to me) 07:31, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
That's a different discussion. The question is simply, "Are there major educational bodies that have expressed dissent from the CBE's stance?" If none has, then raising regional considerations comes off as a kitchen sink approach. Antelantalk 07:53, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
The logic behind that is sort of a reverse-Martinphi approach. Saying "If there aren't any sources from science educators saying parapsychology isn't pseudoscience...", takes the same logical approach to solving the problem as saying "If there aren't any sources from science educators saying all scientists believe parapsychology is pseudoscience..." It's the appeal to ignorance approach. Unfortunately, that doesn't really solve the problem, just restates it in reverse. Plus, a Masters Degree course in science from an accredited University is an education body expressing dissent. Coventry University isn't an isolated case, by the way. It was just an example. Another example within the US would be Franklin Pierce University in New Hampshire. They offer a minor in parapsychology with a major in psychology, at the Bachelor's level.[28] My solution to the problem is what I said over at the FRINGE talk page: Appeal to a specific example. State that the CBoE considers it pseudoscience because that entity carries great weight, regardless of whether it carries sole-weight. It just so happens that this is what the NPOV policy tells us to do as well. --Nealparr(talk to me) 08:05, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
New wording suggestion: "... and science educators, such as the California State Board of Education, have called the subject pseudoscience in their academic standards literature." Not limiting, no mass attribution. --Nealparr(talk to me) 10:21, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Implemented. I really see no reason why this has to be edit warred over; there is consensus that was stated above, the passage does not induce mass attribution (unless a specific source states otherwise), and the term is phrased from the source that proceeds it. seicer | talk | contribs 15:45, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Precisely my point - if/when a source is found from a major educator's group that contradicts this, we can begin to think about regional/etc differences. For now, nothing of that sort is necessary. Antelantalk 16:39, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
I've removed the phrase until the discussion has concluded, although there has been clear consensus made so far to keep the phrasing. seicer | talk | contribs 16:46, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
People are taking the same rout toward the CBE source as they accuse paranormalists of taking: that is, requiring negative proof. If I can't find a source stating the negative, then the positive is asserted. Nice. Nealparr has said it all. But it really could be made simpler: we attribute at Wikipedia if the source is not universal. If there were a central BOA statement for the world, then we wouldn't need to attribute.
"and science educators, such as the California State Board of Education, have called the subject pseudoscience in their academic standards literature." You'd have to have a couple more sources for that. Maybe we do? ——Martinphi☎ Ψ Φ—— 19:55, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
There are sources from the scientific mainstream that term parapsychology pseudoscience, so even if someone demanded negative proof, we've got it. On the other hand, there is no evidence that any academic standards literature considers parapsychology not to be pseudoscience. The only evidence we have demonstrates that science educators' groups consider this to be pseudoscience. If someone would like to provide positive proof that a science educators' group treats parapsychology as anything but pseudoscience, this would be the right place to mention that source. Antelantalk 04:08, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Current state
I think the "such as" clause is unnecessary and needlessly cumbersome. The way the article's lead currently reads is fine and does not seem to be incorrect according to the sources. What do others think? ScienceApologist (talk) 07:39, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Honestly? I've been thinking about the sentence for the last few days and think it's disingenuous without the example. We've been talking about whether it's necessary to add an example when there's no other academic standards literature that says it isn't pseudoscience, but that naturally implies that the subject isn't academic, when obviously (see my examples of where it's treated academically even at the Masters of Science level) for some it is. Forget the whole science vs. pseudoscience discussion. We've added by accident an academic vs. not academic dimension. I maintain that it gets very complicated, and if we want to talk about "needlessly cumbersome", the simplest way to deal with it is to just provide the specific example and avoid delving into that new dimension. For it to be "ingenous", it would need to say something like "Although science educators have called it pseudoscience in their academic standards literature, there are academic courses and degrees available at the Masters of Science level." We don't really need to get into all of that. --Nealparr(talk to me) 12:57, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
The problem is that unlike academic standards which are monitored in a process very similar to peer review, accreditation is done based solely on the goals of the institution in most locales. You could start a school of astrology and offer a Masters of Science degree in the subject. That doesn't make the subject any more "academic" than parapsychology. You're comparing apples and oranges here. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:24, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
The article itself describes how accreditation relates to academic standards:
Organizations that issue credentials or certify third parties against official standards are themselves formally accredited by the standards bodies; hence they are sometimes known as "accredited certification bodies".[3] The accreditation process ensures that their certification practices are acceptable, typically meaning that they are competent to test and certify third parties, behave ethically, and employ suitable quality assurance.
Do you really want to get into the demarcation of accreditation? Unlike pseudoscience, there are clear, established ways of evaluating universities to determine whether they adhere to academic standards. --Nealparr(talk to me) 20:28, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Seeing as how I'm an expert in accreditation, I'll be more than happy to evaluate what accreditation standards the academic departments you mention fulfilled. Please list their accrediting bodies and locations where I can obtain their standards. ScienceApologist (talk) 09:18, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Coventry University and Franklin Pierce University are the examples I listed above as offering courses by science educators. You can start with those. Your challenge would be to demonstrate why they don't have accreditation to mainstream academic standards. That was the claim you were asserting when you told Martinphi that there is not an academic presence of parapsychology in the mainstream academic world and asked for one example. Here's some other ones that offer courses if you'd like to check them out too: University of Edinburgh, University of Adelaide, University of Northampton, Liverpool Hope University, University of Hertfordshire, Lund University, Utrecht University. The examples listed aren't simply research programs or labs free from scrutiny (like PEAR was), but places that offer courses subject to academic standards. Like I said before, they're comparatively more tolerant of the subject over in Europe, hence why I keep saying it's an unsupported generalization. But even in the US (Franklin Pierce), it's not a universal situation where parapsychology is rejected as an academic subject. We can get away with statements like "science doesn't accept parapsychological results", but not statements like "academia doesn't accept parapsychology" in any sort of generalized way. --Nealparr(talk to me) 09:33, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
None of these universities has their parapsychology programs accredited by outside accrediting bodies. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:52, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
That's one way to skirt the issue, rephrase it until it's true. You asked Martinphi for a single presence of parapsychology in the mainstream academic world, several were provided, so the scale is then rephrased and dropped to the level of the program having to be accedited outside the hosting university. If an example of that is provided as well, would it then drop to the books having to be accredited by bodies outside the program and university? --Nealparr(talk to me) 19:24, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
You're either having a hard time with reading comprehension or are becoming deliberately hostile needlessly. The fact is that the mainstream academic world does not treat parapsychology with the same respect it does other mainstream academic disciplines. We have the sources to prove this. End of story. You were the one who argued with my point about accreditation: that's your issue and no one else's. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:31, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
There's no hostility involved. There was a statement in the article that was perfectly fine and compatible with policy, didn't inflate the acceptance level, and instead gave it a measure of authority, and multiple editors agreed with that, with the exception of you and possibly Antelan (he didn't say one way or the other). Removing it led to hostilities in the way of edit warring (not on my part). I'd like to put it back in. At least one editor said there's a clear consensus for putting it back in. I don't know if you're intentionally stonewalling, but rephrasing the issue several different ways doesn't change the issue. The two issues involved were 1) Does it imply a greater acceptance than the topic deserves and 2) Does removing it create the opposite effect, an implication of no acceptance? Both core issues have been addressed: no and possibly, respectively. I want to put it back in. What I don't want is disruptiveness as a result of that. --Nealparr(talk to me) 19:48, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Fact tags
It's a little hard to cite material that was tagged when the article is protected.
For the first:
For the second: <ref name=ESP60>Rhine, J.B. (1966). Foreword. In Pratt, J.G., Rhine, J.B., Smith, B.M., Stuart, C.E., & Greenwood, J.A. (eds.). Extra-Sensory Perception After Sixty Years, 2nd ed. Boston, US: Humphries.</ref>
For the third: <ref name=HymanGanzfeld>The Ganzfeld Psi Experiments: A Critical Appraisal, Ray Hyman, Journal of Parapsychology 49, 1985.</ref>
For the fourth:
Could you please hold off on adding tags while the article is protected? It's really painful to do it this way, and while trying to keep the article featured I don't want to forget to add the citations later. --Nealparr(talk to me) 17:04, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm just doing routine tagging that can be corrected when the article is unprotected. I'll go ahead an add in the citations, unless anyone objects. seicer | talk | contribs 17:15, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
I think that accurate tagging is totally unobjectionable. Antelantalk 17:29, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm not saying it's wholly a bad thing, just hard to follow without being able to directly fix the sourcing problems. Seriously, why can't just the editors involved in an edit war be blocked from the page instead of the entire article being locked down because of one or two editors involved in a dispute? This happens every time. Sometimes it even looks like people are edit warring for just that reason, to lock the article down. It sucks for the editors who aren't involved in the edit war and seems simpler just to block the ones that are. --Nealparr(talk to me) 21:03, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately, some of the editors that are the most vocal tend to get very hot under the collar about it, and attempts to do just what you said have not worked in the past. Page protection is often the only way to go (see also: Cold Fusion) seicer | talk | contribs 04:10, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Three days have passed (which is what the locking admin said it would be locked for), so how about just unlocking it? The two editors involved in the edit war both have ArbCom sanctions preventing them from being disruptive, so I'm sure both of them will take that into account in the future. If not, well, they're under sanctions so it really shouldn't result in the page being locked. Admins have the authority to deal with them directly, personally via the ArbCom. Not saying that either of them would edit war here again. Both have been (mostly) civily engaged in the discussion on which version to use and would probably continue to do so, all things considered. But if not, there's other remedies besides the page lock. --Nealparr(talk to me) 05:31, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
It looks good. Although it's against policy. Perhaps that policy should be changed to say that changes to protected pages can be made if there is complete and total consensus on them. ——Martinphi☎ Ψ Φ—— 19:48, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
That already is the policy. Antelantalk 03:30, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
No, adding out-dated and highly POV sources isn't acceptable. It might be fine for a skeptical opinion. ——Martinphi☎ Ψ Φ—— 21:10, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
These are the opinions of eminent academics and deserve inclusion. Both enjoy a much higher profile than much of what passes for "sources" in this article. See WP:RS. If you disagree, file a complaint with WP:RSN. I consider this matter closed. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:25, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Closed like the other discussion where you stopped talking (WP:SILENCE), I made the revision that others agreed with, and you just reverted to what you wanted anyway? That's called disruptive editing. Regarding the sources above, there's dozens of articles pro and con. Kurtz's essay in the Skeptical Inquirer (1978), for example, was followed by fellow co-founder of CSICOP M. Truzzi's "A skeptical look at Paul Kurtz's analysis of the scientific status of parapsychology" (1980). Parapsychology isn't an obscure topic like many fringe sciences and has a rather large bibliography attached to it. Wheeler's article... even the AAAS told him no (that's the guy who tried to get the AAAS to drop the Parapsychological Association, unsuccessfully). --Nealparr(talk to me) 00:54, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
You're missing the point, Neal. We only have to source the fact that a variety of scientists/science educators feel that way. We don't need to argue whether other people disagree. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:24, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Regarding the removal of the text regarding the California blah blah blah, I see that consensus was formed above at Talk:Parapsychology#Protected to keep the statement and possibly expand upon it. What is the deal with the removal of the passage and keeping the text rather generic? seicer | talk | contribs 04:35, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
I would like nothing more than to keep text in the lead generic. Especially since we have five different sources of people who say that parapsychology is pseudoscience. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:24, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
That's not really the issue. The point of view that it's pseudoscience has always been in the lead, at least in recent years, and definitely since GA status. The issue is that the article is FA, and is slowly being degraded back to GA at best. Clearness is slowly giving way to weaselness. Academic sources now have blogs along with them (to be removed after unlocking). It's not an improvement by any stretch. It's one thing if there was a point of view missing from the article that needed to be included, but there wasn't. No new concepts have been introduced. The quality of the article is the issue. You can call it ownership if you wish, but I see it more as pride in one's work and FA status as the only real reward for wasting time at Wikipedia. There's -some- good edits in this[29] (edits since FA granted), but most of it is just taking it back to every other crappy article on Wikipedia. --Nealparr(talk to me) 19:56, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Neal, you definitely have problems with WP:OWN. You always have. You need to let it go. Also, Sean Carroll's blog is highly respected as a source and probably better than much of what passes for "academic" sources in this article. You see, when dealing with fringe subjects like Parapsychology, citing a third-rate journal article wrtitten by a parapsychological pseudoscientist with no institutional affiliation is just as good as citing a blog written by a first-rate academic from highly respected academic institutions. WP:PARITY and all that. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:12, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Sure, on this article, I'm more concerned about quality than other articles. Nothing wrong with that. I watch crappy stuff get added all the time on Wikipedia and consider it part of the process. I have different standards for FAs, especially FAs I worked on. There's nothing wrong with picking one article to "feature" as part of your Wikipedia involvement and pinning your hopes for a user-contributed project on that. The difference between that and ownership is that quality contributions contrary to what I would have written, I don't say anything about. Wording choices, no big deal. Important concepts missed in the writing, by all means. Substantial changes, lesser quality things, I might have a thing or two to say about that. The FA article is also not my article, but an article written by multiple contributors, through multiple debates, compromises, agreements. I'm defending a collaborative project. In defending that, I'm asking for quality contributions, not no contributions. Huge difference.
Perhaps you didn't review the sources thoroughly. The sources we used when writing the article were carefully selected. Most references to parapsychological journals were dumped in favor of mainstream academic journals like the Psychological Bulletin. When something was pulled from a journal such as The Journal of Parapsychology, it was typically the skeptical view such as that of Ray Hyman. It's difficult to imagine you actually examined the sources when you say we cited third-rate journals written by a parapsychologist, because the combination of parapsychologists in parapsychology journals covers uncontroversial statements, historical statements, critical statements, or fully attributed views of the parapsychologists themselves. There's no flat facts cited to any parapsychologist in this article (or at least there were none when I reviewed it last). The parapsychology journals are treated not as third-party peer reviewed, but as primary sources, and treated correctly as primary sources through attributed statements. You refer to WP:PARITY, but that's the exact concept used here. It's also hard to imagine that you reviewed the sources when you say "no institutional affiliation". Every parapsychologist sourced had academic affiliations. Not that it matters, of course, because they were treated as if they had no affiliations at all. If you have a specific complaint about something you read, let's specifically deal with that, rather than making carte blanche statements that simply aren't true. --Nealparr(talk to me) 16:58, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps you don't understand the point that since the subject is fringe, we have to consider who we can attribute the citation to. Sean Carroll is a reliable source for what academics think (an anecdotal source, but a reliable one). If you disagree with me, take it up on WP:RSN. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:30, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
ScienceApologist, surely you don't think that this source, at least, is actually saying that parapsychology is pseudoscience. Looks like it says the opposite to me. In general, it looks like you have a strong POV that parapsychology is pseudoscience. So you're hunting up as much sourcing as you can to advance this, even though in general the sources will say the opposite, like Randi and Alcock etc. Answer me this. Do you really believe the source mentioned above is a good source for calling parapsychology pseudoscience? ——Martinphi☎ Ψ Φ—— 19:44, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Martin, it is a good source for establishing that many think that parapsychology is pseudoscience. What you seem to think is that just because the author tongue-and-cheek points out the debate he somehow thinks that parapsychology is science. Simply false.
I hesitate to butt in here, but this doesn't seem to me a reliable source for anything. It's just some instructor's class notes for an entry-level class in philosophy of science, and he doesn't seem to understand the subject he's teaching. Whether he thinks parapsychology is science or not is hard to tell, because his thinking is so muddled. It might be worth noting that he can't even decide whether astrology is science or pseudoscience, because he's using really odd criteria to distinguish between them. Possibly a pedagogical strategy by which as the course went on it would become evident that he'd been using the wrong criteria and the right criteria would reveal themselves in time to save the course. At any rate, not a useful source for reliable information. Consider it an unsolicited third opinion.Woonpton (talk) 06:46, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Tis a fair cop. But, as I said, the person teaching the class is an argumentative pedagog of the sort that takes the "devil's advocate" position. All we should take away from the course is that the subjects discussed are widely considered to be pseudoscientific. The peculiar theses advanced by the instructor are irrelevant to this point. ScienceApologist (talk) 05:36, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Since the PHI340 source is being utterly misrepresented, I wonder about the other sources. For example, what is the precise text of the Science Framework for California Public Schools California State Board of Education source? Please provide this.
The blog, -a "group blog" no less [30]- of course, will be taken out. That leaves "Layton, David (1974). Studies in Science Education" but I'm beginning to wonder whether any of them are any good.
The suggested articles above are also totally out of date. They are also by members of a major debunking organization. Kurtz is the founding member of CSICOP, and Wheeler tried without success to get parapsychology thrown out of the AAAS. Not exactly what you want when you're considering making statements of fact. Also written before some of the best of parapsychology's results came in.
I am eagerly waiting to have the questions above answered, especially the one about how the PHI 340 source supports calling it pseudoscience. ——Martinphi☎ Ψ Φ—— 23:44, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Sean Carroll, as an academic, is an excellent source for establishing parapsychology is pseudoscience. Please note that we use the Parapsychology Association website as a source we certainly can use Sean Carroll's opinions as a source. Neither you nor Neal will remove it as a source. If you want, complain to WP:RSN. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:12, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Point 1: Sean Carroll, an academic, and his published works (not blog) would be an excellent source for establishing Sean Carroll feels that parapsychology is pseudoscience, not that all academics feel that way, nor that Carroll's opinion is particularly notable. Citing his blog is a lesser quality source and doesn't establish his notability to the topic. You can cite one of my blogs probably for the same opinion, but I'm not notable to the subject and am not published, so I'm not Wikipedia worthy. Nothing establishes his notability to the topic. Basic Wikipedia 101. Principle detractors would be quality citations, like Hyman, Alcock, Randi, and so on, and are all published, and already included, so there's no reason to include the citation with many reasons not to, up to and including blogspam since the opinion is already reliably sourced to an actual science educator's standards book. Completely not the issue either, because the issue is attribution, and the citation isn't attributed to Carroll.
Point 2: The PA website is cited for uncontroversial or fully attributed statements, as are all parapsychology opinions or views in this article. See my comment above responding to your appeal to WP:PARITY. That's the concept that this article was written under. Parapsychologist sources are treated as primary sources.
Point 3: Neither you nor Neal will remove it as a source. If you want, complain to WP:RSN. What's that about? Any editor can remove material they don't like, and they don't have to go to a noticeboard to do it. The burden is always on the editor adding the material to justify keeping it there. Further, that's an "appeal to laziness" (an appeal to both yours and mine -- yours because you don't want to justify including it, and mine because I don't want to further bother justifying removing it), and bad form, 'cause you know full well I'm lazy. You post it, and I'll justify removing it, because that's how Wikipedia works. --Nealparr(talk to me) 16:58, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Point 1: The source is a verifiable quote from Sean Carroll. He doesn't have to publish it, especially because he views parapsychology with such disdain, there's no reason to think that he would publish it.
Point 2: Cosmic variance is cited for uncontroversial statements. He is a primary source to academics thinking the subject is pseudoscience.
Point 3: I'm responding to the threats both you and Martin have made about removing Sean Carroll's opinion once protection is up.
Regarding Point 2, he is a primary source for "some" academics, which is weasel. Concerning flat facts statements, it's interesting to note that his blog post is equally reliable (at least in terms of verifiability) for making the statement that many of Carroll's readers disagree with the premise of his post equating the "study of" with the topic itself, and that science could study something unscientific. Carroll's reader's view are echoed in the Nature article (sourced here) which covered that very same philosophical discussion after the PEAR lab closed. The Nature article notes that some felt it was inherently unscientific (quotes Robert Park), some felt it is scientific from a psychological perspective (quotes Chris French), and that some feel science should freely explore to a point and give up when it's determined that there are consistently null results (quotes William Happer). Happer (the middle ground) didn't consider parapsychology to be inherently pseudoscientific. Nature, in their writing, didn't consider it a flat fact, and attributed the three separate views. --Nealparr(talk to me) 18:03, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Neal, you and I know that there are virtually no academics who view this "discipline" to be legitimate. It's not just "some" academics: it's a very real phenomenon that academics dismiss parapsychology out of hand. It is not our place to judge them for that. We should simply report it. We have a good selection of sources which demonstrate this and that's all we need. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:02, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I believe fair is fair. If every academic dismissed the topic out of hand, I would honestly say no problem -- print that as a flat fact. Applying fairness, that doesn't resonate with the fact that there are programs at academic universities, there are labs, there are courses, there are affiliations, none of the things you see with bold faced pseudoscience. There's less of a decline of parapsychology in European countries. Parapsychology papers do appear periodically in mainstream psychology journals. Transpersonal psychology (of which parapsychology is a subset) is popular in psychology. In fact, when parapsychologists aren't dabbling in the natural sciences (RNG physics and such), it's mostly accepted like any other soft science psychology. The majority view isn't that it's pseudoscience or unscientific. Many support that parapsychology is actually applying scientific methodology. The majority view is that it's a complete waste of time, producing null or unreliable results, ie. nothing practical or worthwhile. That's the neutral view in the general science sources (versus strictly skeptical sources). So no, I don't support the flat fact statement that it's pseudoscience. I do support including that notable view in the article, in the lead, as I always have. But it's not a fact like the sky is blue. --Nealparr(talk to me) 06:56, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
I think that we may be talking past each other. An idea that when tested produces null results yet is advocating by people who do not advance the null hypotheses is considered by every scientist I know to be a pseudoscience. ScienceApologist (talk) 05:36, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Surely the fact that the Parapsychological Association is affiliated to the AAAS (The American Association for the Advancement of Science) demonstrates that at least one high profile group of science educators/academics are willing to tolerate the notion that parapsychology can be scientific. Add to that the fact that there numerous high profile academics the World over who are actually members of associations such as the PA or the SPR. And add to that the fact the parapsychology is researched at some of the World's most prestigious seats of learning, and there seems little left to the claim that "there are virtually no academics who view this discipline to be legitimate".
This doesn't really say anything because the association itself is controversial. It's like saying that because Lyndon LaRouche runs for president as a Democrat this means he is a "mainstream politician". ScienceApologist (talk) 05:26, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
I've been trying to stay out of this argument for a while now and sit back and see if it runs it's course. However a certain person keeps on pushing their own POV against consensus. I have read the front article and I agree with the others that the idea of pseudoscience has been covered in an appropriate way and needs no more editing. This is an online encyclopedia that is used for reference, not debating the value of various subjects. I humbly suggest that if you want to debate whether this is a pseudoscience or not, I suggest you please take it to the appropriate forum and not this online encyclopedia. I also humbly suggest that you stop pushing your rather blatant personal agenda on everything you disagree with (I.E. user ScienceApologist) I would like to bring up a vote to end this argument. Either you agree with ScienceApologist and add more about this being a pseudoscience or you oppose it and leave the article/first portion as it stands. Brothejr (talk) 02:05, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
I Strongly Oppose making anymore changes towards the pseudoscience aspect.Brothejr (talk) 02:05, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. In fact, the original reference to "science educators," was similarly inserted into the article. The article should probably be returned to the more neutral state it was in when it became a Featured Article. At that time, pseudoscience accusations were covered. I strongly suspect that we are dealing with editorial POV here, as critics of parapsychology such as Randi, Wiseman, Hyman and Alcock have included parapsychology as doing legit science, by one sort of statement or another. So I see absolutely no reason that the article should give a whole lot of significance to "pseudoscience." Among the panoply of sources, those which accuse of pseudoscience are hardly notable- and often it is not clear that they really mean academic parapsychology. The sources given here are certainly not any basis for a global-type statement. I strongly doubt -and my doubts increase greatly for every day which passes without any quotes- that even the sources cited really uphold the statement given. The sources have not been well defended. Further, I know for a fact that one of the sources is actually arguing that some of the usual reasons given for thinking that parapsychology is a pseudoscience are worthless. ScienceApologist refuses even to say whether he thinks the PHI 340 source is good for upholding the statement in the article or not: he speaks of his own interpretation of the source as tongue in cheek, but that's not really an answer. So, it looks to me as if Brothejr has given a good summary of the situation. ——Martinphi☎ Ψ Φ—— 04:38, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Abstain All my views are clearly stated. --Nealparr(talk to me) 07:01, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Having had a look I'm inclined to agree the featured version was better. It's below, if anyone else wants to compare with the current one. --John (talk) 05:26, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. And wow, I'm not sure I've ever met a user who was like The Original. You're THE John. But how'd that come to pass, as you've only been here since 8 January 2006? ——Martinphi☎ Ψ Φ—— 05:44, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
There are some revisions that I think are important to include. The attribution of science educators calling it pseudoscience to the California Board of Education is new notable material not available at the time the lead was written. I think that should still be included, but properly. --Nealparr(talk to me) 07:10, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks MartinPhi. See here for how I got my username; I was formerly User:Guinnog. Neal, I think it is inevitable, especially on a controversial article, that we get decay of a featured article over time. I have no problem with that one change, especially if there is consensus here that it is a valuable addition. What if we go back to that version, with the one change highlighted by you? --John (talk) 15:18, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
I support that, and there's probably some other quality changes that may/should be included. But to keep the article stable, it really doesn't matter what I think. --Nealparr(talk to me) 15:41, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Nealparr that the original 2007 opening was better and some changes need to be made to bring it back to a FA status.--Brothejr (talk) 15:50, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. There are some very good sources below, which seem to militate that we should say parapsychology is the scientific study of the apparently paranormal. Might change that also, but not essential. See, the thing is that the sources taken in general simply don't support "pseudoscience." Actually, they support "science." You have to be very careful to find just the right sources to talk about pseudoscience. For some reason, ScienceApologist has just shown us this fact.... ——Martinphi☎ Ψ Φ—— 22:20, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Not quite. There is an issue of how one might report results. Are their positive results of parapsychology? The answer seems to be "no" according to these sources below. Since people who identify as "parapsychologists" do not support the null hypothesis, they must be pseudoscientists (they do not agree with the results of the very experiments they conduct). ScienceApologist (talk) 05:36, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
The featured version of the lead is much more poor than the current one for the following reasons:
It uses a poor description of the term "psi". Wikipedia cannot say when a term is non-suggestive or not. That's an opinion, not a fact and is not supported by the source.
"qualitative and quantitative" methodologies is suspect as is the claim that there is a variety of each. In fact, I believe that there is only one type of quantitative methodology attempted by these the pseudoscientific charlatans.
there is no characterization of the fact that there are fewer universities supporting this bullshit than ever before.
The laundry list of mainstream journals is pandering. The point is few mainstream journals have published on the subject. By the way, Foundations of Physics is not a very good source anyway and probably doesn't belong in the lead.
The meta-analysis sentences are false. There is very little attention paid to them outside the parochial parapsychology enthusiasts and detractors.
There is no reliable source that says parapsychology is a fringe science.
Stanley Krippner is omitted.
There is no admission that active parapsychologists have admitted to marginalization.
Since these points are not addressed in the "featured version" I say reverting to it is problematic.
1. The definition of psi includes "non-suggestive."
2. No, there are many. Read the lit. It's been going for over a hundred years with many many types of analysis.
3. You want a "chariterization." Perhaps one like "there are fewer universities supporting this bullshit than ever before." ?
4. You might be right that there are too many mainstream journals mentioned.
5. Right.
6. Fine wiz me. We can just call it a scientific field then, per the sources you gave, and skeptics like Randi, who you say is a great source and an expert.
7. So are most of the other skeptics. Let's include the names of some proponents, shall we?
8. This is a paranormal topic. Fringe by definition.
We definitely need to take out the laundry list of skeptics. We also have to stop calling them researchers, since they are not- that is just a falsehood. ——Martinphi☎ Ψ Φ—— 18:10, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
I think that taking out lists of everybody is a great idea: all for it. Let's call them scientists and leave it at that. The rest of the comments are either non-sequitors or impossible for me to evaluate. ScienceApologist (talk) 05:22, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Regarding 2) Nothing wrong with qualitative and quantitative. The first includes simple interviews (which they do) and the latter includes statistical analysis (which they do). Familiarity with the history of the editing process would help as well. There was a list of things they do and when editors complained about the article length in byte size, it was summarized as "qualitative and quantitative", which is, again, a correct summary. Regarding 5), that's demonstrably false, because that's where they do show up in mainstream sources (journals, news media, books, etc.). Regarding 6), you yourself presented a mainstream journal calling them "scientific". Citing "fringe science" is easy enough (even in Skeptical Inquirer[31]) and it's not controversial when you read the definition. Parapsychology is the poster child of fringe science. I support some of the other changes, when they were added and now. Many of the changes occuring since FA status were good. Many were added just to denigrate parapsychology more than it already was. It's important to separate which is which. --Nealparr(talk to me) 12:53, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Regarding 2) the statement is content-less. It's like saying "the atomic nuclei present in the human body contain both protons and neutrons." Not really relevant nor edifying: simply lacking specificity while simultaneously being pedantic. Regarding 5) demonstrably "false" is a little bit of a strange position. You can disagree with me, but it's an opinion not a fact. The opinion I am advancing is that the meta-analyses are of interest only to parapsychologists and their most adamant of detractors: they are not of interest to a general article on the subject as they contain no actual content nor are they reliable in a mean sense. 6) The basic problem is the wording. Whether parapsychology is a "fringe science" or not can be debated, but it cannot be plainly stated. "Parapsychology is a tradition with colorful and sometimes problematic history upheld by various fringe academics who claimed it to be a science." is a sentence that really gets at the meat of the problem. ScienceApologist (talk) 05:22, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Parapsychological research involves a variety of qualitative and quantitative methodologies,Cite error: The <ref> tag has too many names (see the help page). and takes place at a small number of universities and privately funded laboratories, notably in the United States and the United Kingdom. The research has been published in mainstream journals including Psychological Bulletin, Foundations of Physics, and the British Journal of Psychology, as well as specialist publications such as the Journal of Parapsychology. Experiments conducted by parapsychologists have included the use of random number generators to test for psychokinesis, mild sensory-deprivation Ganzfeld experiments to test for extra-sensory perception, and research trials conducted under contract to the United States government to investigate remote viewing. Parapsychologists have generated a number of meta-analytical studies based on this research, which combine the data from previous experiments into one large data set. These statistical analyses have attracted much attention and debate.
Parapsychology is a fringe science because it involves research that does not fit within standard theoretical models accepted by mainstream science. Scientists such as psychologists Ray Hyman and James A. Alcock, among others, are critical of the methodology and results of parapsychology. Skeptical researchers suggest that methodological flaws best explain apparently successful experimental results, as opposed to the anomalistic explanations offered by many parapsychologists. Critical analysts argue that parapsychology crosses the line into pseudoscience. To date, no evidence has been accepted by the mainstream scientific community as irrefutably supporting paranormal phenomena.
More sources
JOURNAL OF COGNITIVE NEUROSCIENCE 20 (1): 182-192 JAN 2008:
Samuel T Moulton
Stephen M Kosslyn
Abstract: Parapsychology is the scientific investigation of apparently paranormal mental phenomena (such as telepathy, i.e., "mind reading"), also known as psi. Despite widespread public belief in such phenomena and over 75 years of experimentation, there is no compelling evidence that psi exists. In the present study, functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) was used in an effort to document the existence of psi. If psi exists, it occurs in the brain, and hence, assessing the brain directly should be more sensitive than using indirect behavioral methods (as have been used previously). To increase sensitivity, this experiment was designed to produce positive results if telepathy, clairvoyance (i.e., direct sensing of remote events), or precognition (i.e., knowing future events) exist. Moreover, the study included biologically or emotionally related participants (e.g., twins) and emotional stimuli in an effort to maximize experimental conditions that are purportedly conducive to psi. In spite of these characteristics of the study, psi stimuli and non-psi stimuli evoked indistinguishable neuronal responses-although differences in stimulus arousal values of the same stimuli had the expected effects on patterns of brain activation. These findings are the strongest evidence yet obtained against the existence of paranormal mental phenomena.
Paranormal Belief and the Avowal of Prior Scepticism
Peter Lamont. Theory & Psychology. London: Oct 2007. Vol. 17, Iss. 5; pg. 681
Abstract (Summary)
A common way in which people warrant their belief in the paranormal is by employing an avowal of prior scepticism. That such avowals are used so often, and cited by others as relevant, suggest they are an effective means of warranting not only the facticity of ostensibly paranormal events but also a belief about the paranormal nature of the event. Their function, it is argued, is to head off potential accusations of gullibility or wishful thinking, and they are analogous to avowals of prior belief by "sceptics", which head off potential accusations of narrow-mindedness. However, such avowals also point up key theoretical and methodological problems in current paranormal belief research. Problems of representation and constitution are discussed, and greater stress upon functional aspects of expressions of paranormal belief is suggested. [PUBLICATION ABSTRACT]
Title:
Communication and laboratory performance in parapsychology experiments: Demand characteristics and the social organization of interaction
Author:
Wooffitt, R
Citation:
BRITISH JOURNAL OF SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY 46: 477-498 Part 3 SEP 2007
Year:
2007
Abstract:
This paper reports findings from a conversation analytic study of experimenter-participant interaction in parapsychology experiments. It shows how properties of communication through which the routine business of the experiment is conducted may have an impact on the research participant's subsequent performance. In this, the study explores social psychological features of the psychology laboratory. In particular, it examines aspects of Orne's (1962) account of what he called the demand characteristics of the psychological experiment. The data come from a corpus of audio recordings of experimenter-participant interaction during experiments on extrasensory perception. These kinds of experiments, and the phenomena they purport to study, are undoubtedly controversial; however, the paper argues that there are grounds for social psychologists to consider parapsychology experiments as a class (albeit distinctive) of psychology experiments, and, therefore, as sites in which general social psychological and communicative phenomena can be studied. The empirical sections of the paper examine interaction during part of the experimental procedure when the experimenter verbally reviews a record of the participant's imagery reported during an earlier part of the experiment.
The analysis shows that the way in which the experimenter acknowledges the research participants' utterances may be significant for the trajectory of the experiment and explores how the participants' subsequent performance in the experiment may be influenced by interactionally generated contingencies.
Psychic Events Workshop Fails APA Curriculum Requirement
Yancy B McDougal. The Skeptical Inquirer. Buffalo: Jul/Aug 2007. Vol. 31, Iss. 4; pg. 9, 1 pgs
Abstract (Summary)
According to the brochure, the topics to be covered included an account of the nature of ESP (with perspectives from parapsychology and quantum physics, as well as material from Einstein, Edison, and Jung), ESP and medicine, psychics and mediums (and how to detect fakes!), telepathy, precognition, and apparitions. Garland and Pamela Leary, NBCC Credentialing Services Department administrator, reviewed the presentation materials and concluded that although the topic of psychic events is "uncomfortable" for many people and not "completely in the mainstream" the information to be presented came from "noteworthy sources" including Einstein, Edison, Freud, Jung, Margaret Mead, and Elisabeth Kubler-Ross.
Excerpt
It's disconcerting that a psychic events workshop that the sponsor indicates is not necessarily scientifically based is offered simply because it is enjoyed by customers. The fact that continuing education credit for this workshop would be granted to psychologists, counselors, nurses, social workers, and marriage and family therapists is appalling....
An e-mail addressing the content of the workshop was sent to the associations and boards that had designated PESI as an approved provider. Karen Kanefield, the director of the Continuing Education Sponsor Approval System of the American Psychological Association, responded immediately. She said that the content of the psychicevents workshop does not meet the curriculum-content requirements of the APA and that PESI would be informed that the workshop "is not suitable as continuing education for psychologists."...
A search of JAMA and the American Journal of Psychiatry for information on psychic phenomena revealed eleven articles published between 1972 and 1985. Of the eleven articles, seven report on actual studies of psychic phenomena. Without exception, the research involved retrospective, anecdotal accounts of events-weak mediodology with virtually no controls....
To have such a workshop considered for presentation is cause for alarm. But the fact that the APA deemed the workshop inappropriate for continuing-education credit and that the NBCC agreed to reexamine the workshop are promising and positive steps. Perhaps we have taken a step toward indeed "coming to our senses."
Yancy B. McDougal is a professor and the chair of the Department of Psychology, University of South Carolina Upstate, Spartanburg, South Carolina. E-mail: ymcdougal@uscupstate.edu.
more later
Comments
I'm surprised that you added those SA, because they back up what I was saying (fringe science/some academic support) and negate what you were saying (pseudoscience/no academic support). The first one (Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, a mainstream journal) outright says "scientific investigation" and goes on to say the parapsychologists concluded normalcy, reiterating what I said is the common view: scientific, but null results. Note that it was the parapsychologist's themselves reporting null results. The second is a study of paranormal beliefs, and talks about believer's tendency to preamble their statements with a "I used to be a skeptic, but...". That's not about parapsychology. It's a regular psychology study of paranormal beliefs and believers. Those studies occur all the time independently of parapsychology. The third (British Journal of Psychology, again published in a mainstream journal), talks about an experimenter-participant effect noted in parapsychology experiments and calls for mainstream psychology to use such experiments as a playground for their own experiments. That's hardly a rejection.
The only good one there for your point of view is the fourth, not surprisingly from the Skeptical Inquirer, a pop skepticism magazine. As a biased source, it doesn't report on what grounds the APA said the workshop didn't meet the criteria. For example, if it is because the "workshop" smacks of New Age (which it seemed like to me), that's not necessarily parapsychology-related. If it's because the Rhine lab is no longer affiliated with the University, that's not a rejection of it as pseudoscience, it's a rejection on technical grounds. Skeptical Inquirer doesn't elaborate because they don't care. They're biased and reported it as a "win" regardless of the reason. It is interesting to note that they had to complain to the APA to get the credits for the workshop dropped, because apparently to the academics involved in the workshop it seemed like it was credit-worthy, which again discounts the idea that there is no academic support. The fact that the Skeptical Inquirer said distinctly that the APA rejection "are promising and positive steps" indicates that they are far from the place they want to be: wholesale rejection. --Nealparr(talk to me) 16:37, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
You seem to think that negative attention lavished upon parapsychology makes it a science. This is simply not the case. Parapsychology is denigrated as a subject worthy of "closing the book on". These sources are used to describe the peculiar pathology inherent to parapsychology believers and practitioners. These minor publications mock parapsychology as a cargo cult science, more or less. The Skeptical Inquirer is a highly regarded source. It is not biased in the least. I plan on adding at least a dozen articles from this publication after unprotection. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:49, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
If you note the sources, you'll see that Skeptical Inquirer is used several times as a source for criticism already (being the most notable source for parapsychology criticism), but it's really hard to take your argument seriously when you say it's not biased in the least... it says "Skeptical" right in the title -- and published by CSICOP, which was formed specifically to debunk paranormal claims. Not biased in the least? But, hey, it beats the blog you were wanting to use, so I guess that's progress. --Nealparr(talk to me) 05:22, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
"The Skeptical Inquirer is an internationally refereed journal (Bartholomew and Radford 2003:220), but it is not a formal scientific journal." Please remember to keep WP:NPOV in mind when adding sources, or when planning to. Thanks. --John (talk) 23:26, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
I suppose they could have said "It has all the structure and appearance of any other science, and must be respected as such." But no, they don't think they need to be that clear. They leave it to skeptic and debunker James Randi to say that. ——Martinphi☎ Ψ Φ—— 03:16, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
No. Ostensibly scientific studies can be obtained under the banner of parapsychology, but that doesn't make the discipline a science. ScienceApologist (talk) 05:39, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Just wanted to say I think the lede can do with another paragraph--whether before or after the one saying how parapsychology is apparently not accepted by science--talking about the kind of people who study it, maybe like some notable ones, and the gist of their views about it. What I mean is, we have the ostensibly mainstream view that parapsychology is not mainstream, so let's hear the parapsychologists view, which is maybe something like: they think that even though their studies are challenged by mainstream science they think this is only because of peoples' stubborn notions; OR, they think that the evidence they have amassed is quite sufficient to prove that these phenomena really exist, but they say it's not accepted because of whatever, like unexamined assumptions, or whatever a few notable parapsychologists say. Know what I mean? At the moment the lede is obviously biased, and this additional information would not detract from the voice of mainstream science, but it would at least allow for the subject of the article to be discussed on its own terms, which is what wikipedia should do, according to my understanding.--Asdfg12345 14:37, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
I think a sentence about who studies parapsychology and who finds it interesting as a subject would be very informative as well. I would especially like to show the rank amateurism that the subject has come to embrace these days: a definite show of the fact that the entire idea has been marginalized to beyond fringe, so to speak. ScienceApologist (talk) 05:12, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
The idea is a paragraph from the perspective of parapsychologists who have said things about their work and how it stands in relation to the mainstream; rather than just how the mainstream sees how they stand in relation to parapsychology. That's what's missing from the lede, and it's a fairly important point I think.--Asdfg12345 09:25, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
I do not think it helps to be pessimistic or negative towards others or their motivations. I think many people would see that as a reasonable point, or would be able to share their understanding of how it may be unreasonable, and then discuss intelligently it on those terms. On the whole I doubt anyone would reasonably dispute or deny it. The page is locked at the moment. Have you got some links or references of journal article from notable parapsychologists who present their views on this? With a few high quality sources we could cobble together a helpful paragraph and propose introducing it to the lede.--Asdfg12345 09:55, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Okay, great. That's all quite useful. Their thoughts are highly relevant and should be given in summary form in the lede, as required by WP:lede. I'll endeavour to follow up on those sources within 48-72 hours and come up with a paragraph that we can kick around here on the talk page. Unless someone else does it first.--Asdfg12345 11:12, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
By rights, along with the "Criticism" subsection there should be one called "Defence", which responds to the criticisms. I've no doubt that there is such literature. We could get onto that later. There's probably such a lull on this article because it's locked right now, eh.--Asdfg12345 11:18, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't think so. Article should document the mainstream objections, not provide a tic-for-tak. Jefffire (talk) 11:25, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Jefffire may have been referring to the idea of a "Defence" section. I think it's cynical to call the idea tit-for-tat. That's not the spirit I proposed it in. We are building a high quality encyclopedia. Failing to give both sides of the story is negligent. We are just talking about documenting what notable parapsychologists have said about how their work stands in relation to the "mainstream"--the view of parapsychologists in an article about parapsychology should actually be primary, because that is what the article is about. The notable criticisms are also important, and they should also be documented. The responses to criticism are also important. The section could either be renamed to "Criticism and defence", or add another subsection called "Defence". Either way. To start with, a paragraph in the lede explaining the views of parapsychologists about their work would be good. Its absence really sticks out, and I noticed that right away as an outside, and fairly disinterested, observer to the issue.--Asdfg12345 12:18, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Generally, when we try to write articles about controversial subjects that have been criticized we try to incorporate the "defense" against criticisms into the main text describing the subject itself. The problem with allowing for "defense" sections is that it lends itself to a back-and-forth. Why not have a "criticism of the defense" section and then a "defense of the criticism of the defense" section and so on? Because it doesn't serve the reader, that's why. We say what parapsychology proponents say and say what their detractors say and do not reproduce any actual or artificial dialogs since Wikipedia is not a point-counterpoint exercise. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:26, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
That is a fairly reasonable point. However it happens, I think it's important that parapsychologists' response to the objections of mainstream science be discussed--or we would be left with half the picture. I'm surprised that guy's text was all deleted. I'd never seen anyone delete a banned users text before, particularly when it wasn't bad language or something. anyway, I hope to come up with a paragraph for the lede based on some of those sources soon.--Asdfg12345 00:15, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Theories of psi
The article lacks an account of parapsychological theories, e.g. interactionist dualism, appeals to quantum mechanics, and so forth. Mporter (talk) 09:22, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi There
I am a second year Psychology student from Brisbane, Australia.
I am going to be spending one or two semesters at the University of Leeds, which will begin on the 15th of september
I am very much interested in learning more about parapsychology, because I feel that it is more associated with what I truly believe in. I have been into meditation and natural healing for about 15 years.
If there is any information you can provide me with, I would very much appreciate it.
Kind Regards
Jade
email - jadeshelley27@hotmail.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.230.224.244 (talk) 19:55, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
