Langbahn Team – Weltmeisterschaft

Talk:Parapsychology

Former featured articleParapsychology is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on August 11, 2008.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
July 19, 2007Good article nomineeListed
July 31, 2007Peer reviewReviewed
July 31, 2007Featured article candidateNot promoted
September 11, 2007Featured article candidatePromoted
September 22, 2009Featured article reviewDemoted
Current status: Former featured article

Gost Arcologist

What is the study of Spirit, monster, Alen are called what Arcologist 157.49.236.143 (talk) 12:26, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest deleting talk topic. This is not a discussion forum. LetoDidac (talk) 04:04, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion to include balanced and well-informed reference to the recognition of parapsychology by AAAS.

As noted in the discussion following from @Luxnir(talk), it would be more neutral to provide information on both sides of the scientific debate on parapsychology at the get-go instead of solely references to its criticism. The American Academy for the Advancement of Science, which is the premiere scientific consortium in the world (as well as the APA), openly recognizes the exploration of parapsychological phenomena as a legitimate field of scientific inquiry. I also added references to its criticism in the first paragraph and at the end of the relevant paragraph. Here are my suggested additions to the introduction; I welcome alternative viewpoints and discussion: LetoDidac (talk) 03:58, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the text you proposed is more neutral, balanced, and informative. Well written too.
The adjective "parapsychic" doesn't seem to get much use. Might be better to say "The most prominent research society in parapsychology today. . ."
Cordially, O Govinda (talk) 10:34, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We have to edit within the bounds of WP:PSCI: we have to state in the voice of Wikipedia that parapsychology is a pseudoscience. tgeorgescu (talk) 15:18, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is incorrect. We have to state what is supported by evidence, not continue to support an erroneous foregone conclusion. I have therefore restored LetoDidac's more neutral edit. Morgan Leigh | Talk 07:07, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In the interest of finding a consensus, I propose:
----
Parapsychology (or psi research) is the study of alleged psychic phenomena (such as (extrasensory perception, telepathy, precognition, clairvoyance, psychokinesis, and psychometry) and some other paranormal claims, for example, those related to near-death experiences, synchronicity, apparitional experiences, etc.[1]
The subject areas studied by parapsychology are highly controversial and lack general acceptance in the scientific community. Critics argue that the field is pseudoscience because the very phenomena under consideration are implausible and violate the rules of nature, and because parapsychologists have failed to produce evidence for paranormal phenomena that is robust and replicable enough to satisfy the wider scientific community.[2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9] Its proponents argue that claims of seemingly paranormal experiences should be studied and treated in the same way as other experiences (that is, within the context of experience, health and illness), and that there must be a field of study to investigate, assess, and disseminate information about these experiences.
The incidence of parapsychology related research in major and mainstream psychology journals has increased somewhat over recent years, but is still relatively rare. [10] [11][12][13][14] LetoDidac (talk) 01:30, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Turning this into a Side A says 'Yes' and Side B says 'No' as this proposal does is WP:FALSEBALANCE, and we are specifically not supposed to do that. MrOllie (talk) 01:33, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
MrOllie, don't you think in this case, the suggestion is giving clear weight to the idea that they are not widely accepted? The A side is substantiated with arguments and sources about parapsychology having inconsistent findings and being implausible, while the B side is just giving a moral argument that it is ok to have a field of study for human experiences regardless of whether they are plausible or not. It is not even trying to claim that the effects are real. Does that seem like balance to you? LetoDidac (talk) 07:58, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It seems like an attempt to cast the scientific mainstream as one of two competing opinions, and that is counter to Wikipedia's policy requirements. MrOllie (talk) 14:18, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of how any given editor feels about it, WP:PSCI is, in fact, policy. Simonm223 (talk) 13:03, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

---

Parapsychology (or psi research) is the study of alleged psychic phenomena, such as (extrasensory perception, telepathy, precognition, clairvoyance, psychokinesis, and psychometry) and some other paranormal claims, for example, those related to near-death experiences, synchronicity, apparitional experiences, etc.[1] The findings of parapsychology are highly controversial and lack general acceptance in the scientific community.

The most prominent parapsychic research society today is the Parapsychology Association, which is a member society of the American Association for the Advancement of Science(AAAS), the umbrella association of American scientific professional societies. The AAAS recognises parapsychology as a legitimate field of study because it follows accepted scientific procedures such as blinds, double blinds, and other standard scientific devices; because of the highly controversial nature of the topic, the AAAS submitted the decision to a vote, which landed 5:1 in favor of recognition. [15] In 2018, a comprehensive review of the discipline was published in a peer-reviewed article of American Psychologist, a major psychology journal. [16] Despite recognition of its attempted scientific procedures, the actual findings of the discipline are still considered implausible by many, if not most scientists, and critics often dismiss them as pseudoscience.[17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24]

References

  1. ^ a b Schmidt, Joachim (2007). "Parapsychology". In von Stuckrad, Kocku (ed.). The Brill Dictionary of Religion. Leiden and Boston: Brill Publishers. doi:10.1163/1872-5287_bdr_COM_00339. ISBN 978-9004124332.
  2. ^ Reber, Arthur; Alcock, James (2019). "Why parapsychological claims cannot be true". Skeptical Inquirer. 43 (4): 8–10. The lure of the 'para'-normal emerges, it seems, from the belief that there is more to our existence than can be accounted for in terms of flesh, blood, atoms, and molecules. A century and a half of parapsychological research has failed to yield evidence to support that belief.
  3. ^ Gross, Paul R.; Levitt, Norman; Lewis, Martin W. (1996). The Flight from Science and Reason. New York: New York Academy of Sciences. p. 565. ISBN 978-0801856761. The overwhelming majority of scientists consider parapsychology, by whatever name, to be pseudoscience.
  4. ^ Friedlander, Michael W. (1998). At the Fringes of Science. Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press. p. 119. ISBN 978-0813322001. Parapsychology has failed to gain general scientific acceptance even for its improved methods and claimed successes, and it is still treated with a lopsided ambivalence among the scientific community. Most scientists write it off as pseudoscience unworthy of their time.
  5. ^ Pigliucci, Massimo; Boudry, Maarten (2013). Philosophy of Pseudoscience: Reconsidering the Demarcation Problem. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. p. 158. hdl:1854/LU-3161824. ISBN 978-0226051963. Many observers refer to the field as a 'pseudoscience'. When mainstream scientists say that the field of parapsychology is not scientific, they mean that no satisfying naturalistic cause-and-effect explanation for these supposed effects has yet been proposed and that the field's experiments cannot be consistently replicated.
  6. ^ Alcock, James (1981). Parapsychology – Science Or Magic?: A Psychological Perspective. Oxford, England: Pergamon Press. pp. 194–196. ISBN 978-0080257730.
  7. ^ Hacking, Ian (1993). "Some reasons for not taking parapsychology very seriously". Dialogue: Canadian Philosophical Review. 32 (3). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press: 587–594. doi:10.1017/s0012217300012361. S2CID 170157379.
  8. ^ Bierman, DJ; Spottiswoode, JP; Bijl, A (2016). "Testing for Questionable Research Practices in a Meta-Analysis: An Example from Experimental Parapsychology". PLoS ONE. 11 (5). San Francisco, California: Public Library of Science: e0153049. Bibcode:2016PLoSO..1153049B. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0153049. PMC 4856278. PMID 27144889. We consider [questionable research practices] in the context of a meta-analysis database of Ganzfeld–telepathy experiments from the field of experimental parapsychology. The Ganzfeld database is particularly suitable for this study, because the parapsychological phenomenon it investigates is widely believed to be nonexistent ... results are still significant (p = 0.003) with QRPs.
  9. ^ Carroll, Sean (May 11, 2016). "Thinking About Psychic Powers Helps Us Think About Science". WIRED. New York City: Condé Nast. Today, parapsychology is not taken seriously by most academics.
  10. ^ Cardeña, E. (2018). "The experimental evidence for parapsychological phenomena: A review". American Psychologist. 73 (5): 663–677. doi:10.1037/amp0000236. This article clarifies the domain of psi, summarizes recent theories from physics and psychology that present psi phenomena as at least plausible, and then provides an overview of recent/updated meta-analyses. The evidence provides cumulative support for the reality of psi, which cannot be readily explained away by the quality of the studies, fraud, selective reporting, experimental or analytical incompetence, or other frequent criticisms. The evidence for psi is comparable to that for established phenomena in psychology and other disciplines, although there is no consensual understanding of them.
  11. ^ Bem, D. J. (2011). "Feeling the future: Experimental evidence for anomalous retroactive influences on cognition and affect". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 100: 407–425. doi:10.1037/a0021524. This article reports 9 experiments, involving more than 1,000 participants, that test for retroactive influence by "time-reversing" well-established psychological effects so that the individual's responses are obtained before the putatively causal stimulus events occur.
  12. ^ Storm, L.; Tressoldi, P. E.; Di Risio, L. (2010). "A meta-analysis with nothing to hide: Reply to Hyman (2010)". Psychological Bulletin. 136: 491–494. doi:10.1037/a0019840.
  13. ^ Storm, L.; Tressoldi, P. E.; Di Risio, L. (2010). "Meta-analysis of free-response studies, 1992–2008: Assessing the noise reduction model in parapsychology". Psychological Bulletin. 136: 471–485. doi:10.1037/a0019457. The mean effect size value of the ganzfeld database was significantly higher than the mean effect size of the standard free-response database but was not higher than the effect size of the nonganzfeld noise reduction database.We also found that selected participants (believers in the paranormal, meditators, etc.) had a performance advantage over unselected participants, but only if they were in the ganzfeld condition.
  14. ^ Exline, Julie J.; Wilt, Joshua A. (May 2023). "Supernatural Attributions: Seeing God, the Devil, Demons, Spirits, Fate, and Karma as Causes of Events". Annual Review of Clinical Psychology. 19: 461–487. doi:10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-080921-081114. Retrieved December 12, 2024. This article provides a broad overview of research on supernatural beliefs and attributions with special attention to their psychological relevance: They can serve as coping resources, sources of distress, psychopathology signals, moral guides, and decision-making tools... Our aim is to provide clinical psychologists with an entry point into this rich, fascinating, and often overlooked literature.
  15. ^ Dean, E. Douglas (1969). "Parapsychology is now a recognised science. How it was done" (PDF). Newark College of Engineering. Central Intelligence Agency. Retrieved 2024-09-11.
  16. ^ Cardeña, E. (2018). "The Experimental Evidence for Parapsychological Phenomena: A Review". American Psychologist. 73 (5): 663–677. doi:10.1037/amp0000236.
  17. ^ name="AlcockSI">Reber, Arthur; Alcock, James (2019). "Why parapsychological claims cannot be true". Skeptical Inquirer. 43 (4): 8–10. The lure of the 'para'-normal emerges, it seems, from the belief that there is more to our existence than can be accounted for in terms of flesh, blood, atoms, and molecules. A century and a half of parapsychological research has failed to yield evidence to support that belief.
  18. ^ Gross, Paul R.; Levitt, Norman; Lewis, Martin W. (1996). The Flight from Science and Reason. New York: New York Academy of Sciences. p. 565. ISBN 978-0801856761. The overwhelming majority of scientists consider parapsychology, by whatever name, to be pseudoscience.
  19. ^ Friedlander, Michael W. (1998). At the Fringes of Science. Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press. p. 119. ISBN 978-0813322001. Parapsychology has failed to gain general scientific acceptance even for its improved methods and claimed successes, and it is still treated with a lopsided ambivalence among the scientific community. Most scientists write it off as pseudoscience unworthy of their time.
  20. ^ Pigliucci, Massimo; Boudry, Maarten (2013). Philosophy of Pseudoscience: Reconsidering the Demarcation Problem. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. p. 158. hdl:1854/LU-3161824. ISBN 978-0226051963. Many observers refer to the field as a 'pseudoscience'. When mainstream scientists say that the field of parapsychology is not scientific, they mean that no satisfying naturalistic cause-and-effect explanation for these supposed effects has yet been proposed and that the field's experiments cannot be consistently replicated.
  21. ^ Alcock, James (1981). Parapsychology – Science Or Magic?: A Psychological Perspective. Oxford, England: Pergamon Press. pp. 194–196. ISBN 978-0080257730.
  22. ^ Hacking, Ian (1993). "Some reasons for not taking parapsychology very seriously". Dialogue: Canadian Philosophical Review. 32 (3). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press: 587–594. doi:10.1017/s0012217300012361. S2CID 170157379.
  23. ^ Bierman, DJ; Spottiswoode, JP; Bijl, A (2016). "Testing for Questionable Research Practices in a Meta-Analysis: An Example from Experimental Parapsychology". PLoS ONE. 11 (5). San Francisco, California: Public Library of Science: e0153049. Bibcode:2016PLoSO..1153049B. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0153049. PMC 4856278. PMID 27144889. We consider [questionable research practices] in the context of a meta-analysis database of Ganzfeld–telepathy experiments from the field of experimental parapsychology. The Ganzfeld database is particularly suitable for this study, because the parapsychological phenomenon it investigates is widely believed to be nonexistent ... results are still significant (p = 0.003) with QRPs.
  24. ^ Carroll, Sean (May 11, 2016). "Thinking About Psychic Powers Helps Us Think About Science". WIRED. New York City: Condé Nast. Today, parapsychology is not taken seriously by most academics.
According to the Mertonian norms in science wins he/she who is able to convince most skeptics. This has not happened for parapsychology. If Albert Einstein had the success which parapsychology had till now, he would have been largely forgotten. tgeorgescu (talk) 04:47, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • This proposal is not neutral for a variety of reasons. A lengthy paragraph on the AAAS is not proportionate to the topic, and tucking away the many, many sourced refutations of this supposed consensus with a WP:WEASELish "Despite..." is not appropriate, and goes against WP:FRINGE norms. Emphasizing the 2018 source in this way is a form of editorializing, as well. Grayfell (talk) 02:17, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    One reasonable revision would be to remove "Despite recognition of its attempted scientific procedures, " so that the end of the paragraph simply reads: "The actual findings of the discipline are still considered implausible by many, if not most scientists, and critics often dismiss them as pseudoscience."
    I disagree that discussion of the AAAS decision is not appropriate. An entire field of study - that is, the study of a particular topic - cannot be described as pseudoscience. Pseudoscience refers to unscientific methods and procedures, which in this case scientists in the discipline have addressed with careful experimental deaign over many years and with significant success. The AAS even noted that many well known scientific devices had their birth in Parapsychology. Wikipedia and its moderators cannot continue to refer to an entire field of study as PSCI. At best, it is unconscionable with regards to all of the thousands of staff and research participants involved in proving or disproving these studies, and at worst it is criminal misrepresentation. LetoDidac (talk) 03:44, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    For the record, I support this suggestion. Morgan Leigh | Talk 03:53, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If you can't see a consensus then you can't count. Three editors have agreed that this edit is better than the one you and tgeorgescu are advocating for. Moreover you have reverted the edit without discussion. I suggest, seeing you are in the minority, that you reply to the compromise solution LetoDidac made, which I support. Morgan Leigh | Talk 03:53, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This isn't a vote. MrOllie (talk) 04:02, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Seven citations to claim it's pseudoscience is not proportionate either, someone is compensating for lack of quality with quantity, but here we are. Morgan Leigh | Talk 03:56, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Grayfell is entirely correct. This is massively WP:UNDUE weight and the proposal would take the article further from WP:NPOV - which means that we are supposed to follow what most mainstream, independent sources have to say, not give primacy to the opinion of the AAAS, which (in part) represents parapsychologists. MrOllie (talk) 03:57, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As MrOllie says, this isn't a vote. Further, local consensus cannot over-rule site-wide consensus on how to treat fringe topics, such as this one. The current wording already is the compromise. These current sources are in-part to dissuade exactly this kind of cherry-picking that is being proposed here. The current consensus has been built up over many years of such discussions (and Morgan Leigh has been involved in some of those, and has previously attempted to overturn this consensus). This consensus was not only formed on this talk page, but also at noticeboards such as Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard, where this has been raised dozens of times over the years. Grayfell (talk) 04:59, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pseudoscience is when you accept a belief due to prior held convictions and dogma, instead of genuine scientific curiosity and inquiry. If this is the fifth time that you've argued that parapsychology is 'Fringe' without first reading any of the recent literature reviews published  by the major psychology journals, then I beg that you reflect on this statement. Becoming informed is really not that hard.
The cumulative evidence for so-called 'psi' is now so overwhelming, particularly concerning studies of near death experiences, extra-sensory perception and micro-PK, that this article will be in stark opposition to many readers' direct lived and witnessed experience, and thus erode trust in Wikipedia. This is not a vote, it is a failure.
To be clear, I am not suggesting overturning a consensus to now support so-called 'paranormal' beliefs.  I am supporting to describe a scientific field of study and it's purpose, avoiding sweeping generalisations about its scientific procedures that are not reflective of any of the major journals' views today. LetoDidac (talk) 06:00, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I changed the order of your contributions since this is obviously a response to Grayfell.
Your private definition of pseudoscience is not relevant here. Neither is your opinion that the evidence is "overwhelming". We follow not your opinion but reliable sources. Finding tiny effects in huge amounts of data, which tend to disappear over time or when other people do it, are a typical property of Langmuir's pathological science. Parapsychology is exactly that. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:07, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I confess I was frustrated by the whole page being reverted. I will go off and think of a way of having an introduction that is well written at the least, and at best is informative for a variety of readers. It is clear to me now that there needs to be a front-focused discussion that there is a lingering debate of whether parapsychology is a valid field of study, including the for and against, like langmiurs criticism. I am an academic, and I am confident I can synthesise the relevant views and write something that will work for all of the editors and also raise the quality of the page. LetoDidac (talk) 20:51, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I encourage you in this endeavour. I suggest that you first spend some time reading the archive of this talk page. You will find that many good quality sources have been added to this page by many editors over the years, only to be repeatedly removed. For example consider why Etzel Cardeña is neither mentioned nor cited in this article.
You might consider if sources that are used to support claims that parapsychology is pseudoscience are in fact indicating the opposite. You might look to see if it is the case that sources that are allowed to be used to support claims against parapsychology are all of a sudden discovered to either not be good sources or accusations of cherry picking appear, when those exact same sources are used to support parapsychological findings.
You might also like to peruse wikipedia's policies about outdated sources and see if any such sources are being cited in this page. Perhaps you could also draw your attention to if it is the case that sources that are not generally allowed to be cited on wikipedia, such as blogs, are being used on this page.
Some searching through the fringe theories noticeboard will be very instructive to you. Also useful to you will be a close reading of wikipedia policy on fringe topics as well as a look back through arbitration committee decisions about parapsychology and about NPOV.
Good luck Morgan Leigh | Talk 02:15, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Morgan Leigh, this is very useful. Is there a PM service on Wikipedia? - I am a bit too new and would love to understand different processes. I could pass you a junk email address, would that work? LetoDidac (talk) 07:41, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
First, when we refer to mainstream independent sources, we should be referring to significant works (i.e. studies), not uninformed statements by lifelong skeptics that are currently referenced in the page.
And how can you claim that the AAAS represents parapsychologists? It is the largest scientific organization in the world, and it voted 5:1 to recognise parapsychology as a genuine field of study. Less than a handful of the hundreds of people who voted in that consensus are parapsychologists or represent them in any way, shape or form. It is certainly a much more authoritative and scientific institution than Wikipedia, and indeed, than almost any other in the world.
Consensus overturning is the natural progression of science. We should not shy away from it. If Wikipedia was now placed side by side with the large peer reviewed psychology journals, it would basically be the last one to recognise parapsychology as a valid field of study. It is simply behind the curve. If this so-called "consensus" is not turned over soon, it will simply serve to alienate its readers to turn to more trusted sources, which concerning this topic, are now pretty much anything. LetoDidac (talk) 05:46, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your demand to cite "studies" goes against WP:PRIMARY, a rule which reflects how scientists actually handle studies. Your claim that parapsychology is "recognised" by everybody except Wikipedia needs a really good source. Well, if you redefine "everybody" by excluding people who disagree with you as you do above (lifelong skeptics), then you can privately maintain that opinion, but Wikipedia does not work like that. (Nor does science.) --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:07, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly if we were to base a parapsychology article on primary sources (we should not) then it would still show parapsychology to be bunk because parapsychology leaves in its wake a host of non-replicable studies that used deeply flawed methodologies and, even then, often showed no evidence of "psi." Simonm223 (talk) 13:08, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Secondary studies are studies. Morgan Leigh | Talk 22:15, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think my comment was misunderstood; secondary studies (e.g., meta analyses) are perfectly valid. But just having opinions of uninformed observers that are not backed by a true underlying analysis is very different. For example, applying a Bayesian technique to say that under a particular statistical model psi no longer has 5 sigma is perfectly valid analysis and conclusion.
Having unsubstantiated quotes of somebody claiming that it is pseudoscience, without even getting nitty gritty into the research design or data, is little more than religious Dogma. It is what science was invented to stop. It is certainly not a valid scientific source. There is danger because there is true scientific taboo around this topic; it is too easy to give credence to uninformed opinions. LetoDidac (talk) 07:47, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia doesn't require our sources to provide proof to your specific standard, and you can't discount things this site considers to be reliable sources by calling them 'uninformed observers'. MrOllie (talk) 14:20, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's true that the given due weight of any given critic of parapsychology should be assessed on its individual merits. However I would caution people trying to soften the POV on a perennial WP:FRINGE pseudoscience topic to seek consensus for WP:DUE derived changes prior to making them. Simonm223 (talk) 15:53, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What happened was that a bunch of editors voted to say that sources, e.g. the Skeptical Inquirer, that would normally not be considered reliable on wikipedia because they are self published, were cool and normal and now these sources are used to attack all kinds of topics as if their word is gospel, even though arbcom said they should be treated as opinion sources. Morgan Leigh | Talk 02:11, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1) What you wrote here doesn't match what's in that RFC very well and 2) Even if that is what Arbcom wrote (it isn't) Arbcom has no authority to make content decisions. - MrOllie (talk) 02:55, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The claim the Skeptical Inquirer is "self-published" is crazy shit. Where do you get such ideas? --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:54, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Probably the same place as all the people who argued that it was not a good source here at Arbcom. You might want to review WP:UNCIVIL Morgan Leigh | Talk 03:04, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's not 'at Arbcom', that was an RFC held on a noticeboard, one that came to the opposite conclusion to what you're espousing here. Here's what Arbcom wrote on the matter: there was a general consensus in that discussion that the Skeptical Inquirer is not a self-published source. MrOllie (talk) 03:36, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Morgan Leigh has stated that Arbcom said they should be treated as opinion sources, which is correct. I'm thankful for the links and discussion as they will very much come in handy. LetoDidac (talk) 07:38, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You don't understand: at Wikipedia admins sanction behavior. WP:ANI or ARBCOM dictating content are taboo. tgeorgescu (talk) 08:00, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
? The discussion Morgan Leigh linked to was a Reliable Sources Noticeboard discussion on whether SI was reliable and whether any extra conditions applied beyond those normally expected of all sources. The close read: It is overwhelmingly clear by both the number and strength of arguments that the discussion participants rejected [classing SI as generally unreliable or deprecated] and I believe that the discussion establishes a reasonably clear consensus to use the Skeptical Inquirer with consideration given to proper usage in consonance with existing sourcing and content policy. Nothing there suggests there was anything close to consensus that SI is an SPS. JoelleJay (talk) 03:02, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Self-published" is obvious bullshit no matter how much you try to defend it with fallacious reasoning. The correct reaction to getting statements refuted is not to dodge the matter by saying "you are uncivil" (read WP:SEALION). Maybe you could try to think about what the correct response is instead. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:47, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Erroneous removal of psychology sidebar

MrOllie Please explain your contention that parapsychology is not psychology.

Here are some sources that make it clear parapsychology is psychology: This chapter showing parapsychology listed in The Wiley‐Blackwell Handbook of Transpersonal Psychology.

This page showing that the Koestler Parapsychology Unit is clearly listed as being part of the psychology department of School of Philosophy, Psychology and Language Sciences at the university of Edinburgh.

This page showing that The Centre for Research on Consciousness and Anomalous Psychology is clearly part of the department of psychology.

This page showing Dr. Lance Storm who is employed in the School of Psychology.

Unless you have something more to offer than your opinion v these sources I am going to return the sidebar. Morgan Leigh | Talk 03:09, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly do not edit war. You don't get to dismiss the objections of others by simply claiming they are 'opinion'. You are well aware that you will not get consensus support for your addition, either here or on the sidebar template in question. Links to claims by fringe promoters aren't going to be usable, independent sources. Parapsychology should not be listed as a discipline of psychology, just like we don't list Energy medicine as a discipline of medicine, Cold fusion as a type of fusion, and so on and so on. MrOllie (talk) 03:18, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"You don't get to dismiss the objections of others by simply claiming they are 'opinion'." According to the rules of Wikipedia I totally do. Do you know what we call uncited information? We call it opinion. One revert is not edit warring. I am asking you to cite sources. If you can't do that and I return this information to the article I am adding cited information and you are removing cited information with no reason other than your opinion. Morgan Leigh | Talk 03:29, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You have profoundly misunderstood 'the rules of Wikipedia' as given at WP:CONSENSUS. MrOllie (talk) 03:31, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm super familiar with that page. If you read it you will find it says that sources prevail over opinions. You have provided an unsourced opinion. I have provided sources.
So far you have; accused me of edit warring when I am not, Stated your unsourced opinion that parapsychology should not be listed as psychology, and claimed I don't understand policy. I ask again, please provide some sources to back up your opinion. Morgan Leigh | Talk 04:07, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You said Unless you have something more to offer than your opinion v these sources I am going to return the sidebar. <-- if you do that, that would be edit warring.
I ask again, please provide some sources to back up your opinion. I'm not actually required to WP:SATISFY your requirements to object to the inclusion of a misleading entry in a navbox, nor are talk page comments 'unsourced opinion', a phrase which commonly refers to adding unsourced commentary to articles. MrOllie (talk) 04:12, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This article is literally loaded with reliable independent sources that explain why parapsychology is not a part of mainstream science. Overcoming those in a kamikaze push to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS isn't going to succeed, especially with a number of experienced editors informing you of your misapprehension of editorial policies. Better to put this crusade aside, take some time to get to know the encyclopedia better, work on some uncontroversial articles, etc. I think it will benefit us all in the long run. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:51, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The "Para" prefix in Parapsychology literally means "beside, alongside" (not within, separate from). I never liked the term because it implies that only psychologists can do paranormal research, leaving out physicists and electrical engineers. I agree the Psychology sidebar is not appropriate. 5Q5|✉ 16:38, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This article is littered with biased, outdated and poor quality sources to support the claims that parapsychology is not science. "The scientific consensus is that there is insufficient evidence to support the existence of psi phenomena" this sentence alone has no source that is less than twenty years old. The reason that there are no sources supporting the scientific validity of psi is that every time any editor tries to add one they are instantly removed, regardless of whether they are peer reviewed or not. This has happened again, and again, and again, and again and again. Morgan Leigh | Talk 03:49, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Electricity produced the telegraph. Parapsychology produced 1-900-PSYCHIC. They are not in the same league. 20 more years of weak correlations mean nothing if there is no smoking gun.
According to Mertonian norms, scientists have to convince the skeptics, otherwise such scientists are losers. If Einstein failed to convince the skeptics, nobody would know his name today. If they're not catering for the skeptics, scientists have made an error when choosing their own career. If they're not catering for the skeptics, they're just idiots savants. Because they lack an even basic understanding of their own job. Of course, I don't diagnose them, it's just hyperbole. But their job isn't to preach to the choir. As long as parapsychology researchers don't abandon preaching to the choir, they stand no chance of parapsychology getting recognized as bona fide psychology.
Recap:
Concur with @Tgeorgescu - couldn't have said it better myself. Simonm223 (talk) 14:14, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't say that immaterial souls or spirits don't exist. But quantum mechanics does not allow them to interact with matter. tgeorgescu (talk) 14:36, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On the question of why "peer reviewed" sources are excluded I guess the question was whether any of them were ever successfully replicated by a researcher who was not a true believer. Peer review says "this is not plagiarized and the math looks OK" rather than "this is truth." Replication is key. Simonm223 (talk) 14:57, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also @Morgan Leigh could you please provide actual diffs for removed peer-reviewed sources? Because, out of all those links, this is all I could find and, from the abstract, it seems like even the author concluded that marginal statistical correlations and lack of replicability are research problems to overcome. Simonm223 (talk) 15:00, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Being specific the abstract says the following as a partial list of next-steps: conducting multidisciplinary studies with enough power, developing further nonconscious measures of psi and falsifiable theories, analyzing the characteristics of successful sessions and participants, improving the ecological validity of studies, testing how to increase effect sizes, Simonm223 (talk) 15:02, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I absolutely can provide you exactly the dates and editors who have removed information if you want it laid out more clearly.
The abstract you refer to also clearly says 'The evidence for psi is comparable to that for established phenomena in psychology and other disciplines, although there is no consensual understanding of them.". This cited quote was in the article previously but was removed by LuckyLouie on October 1st 2018 and then removed again by SkepticalRaptor on October 2nd 2018.
This cited statement was removed "a branch of psychology that studies a group of phenomena collectively known as psi, a term referring to the transfer of information or energy that cannot be explained by known physical or biological mechanisms".Kihlstrom, J. (2000). Parapsychology. In A. E. Kazdin (Ed.), Encyclopedia of psychology (Vol. 6, pp. 43-46). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. was removed by you on October 2 2018.
You also removed this "In Sweden Etzel Cardeña, professor of psychology at at Lund University, Sweden, where he is Director of the Centre for Research on Consciousness and Anomalous Psychology (CERCAP) has published more than 250 journal articles and book chapters in journals such as Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, American Journal of Psychiatry, Journal of Abnormal Psychology, Archives of General Psychiatry, Cortex, and American Psychologist" on October 2nd 2018.
This cited quote "results supporting the validity of psi phenomena continue to be published in peer-reviewed, academic journals in relevant fields, from psychology to neuroscience to physics."Cardeña, E. (2014), A call for an open, informed study of all aspects of consciousnesshttps://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnhum.2014.00017/full was removed by Roxy the dog on October 8th 2018 and again 9th of October 2018 by LuckyLouie.
This cited quote "Increased experimental controls have not eliminated or even decreased significant support for the existence of psi phenomena, as suggested by various recent meta-analyses". Cardeña, E. (2014), A call for an open, informed study of all aspects of consciousness. Front. Hum. Neurosci., 27 January 2014 | https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2014.00017 https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnhum.2014.00017/full was also removed by Roxy the dog on October 8th 2018.
This cited information "However in 2014 nearly one hundred academics signed a statement to the effect that they were convinced that the case for psi phenomena had already been made. Cardeña, E., (2014) A call for an open, informed study of all aspects of consciousness, Front. Hum. Neurosci., 27 January 2014 https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2014.00017. "The undersigned differ in the extent to which we are convinced that the case for psi phenomena has already been made, but not in our view of science as a non-dogmatic, open, critical but respectful process that requires thorough consideration of all evidence as well as skepticism toward both the assumptions we already hold and those that challenge them." was removed on the 9th of October 2018 by LuckyLouie
This cited infomation was removed by LuckyLouie on the 9th of October 2018. "However others have countered that despite increasingly stringent experimental controls corroborating results have been demonstrated. * Cardeña, Etzel, 2014 https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnhum.2014.00017/full A call for an open, informed study of all aspects of consciousness "Increased experimental controls have not eliminated or even decreased significant support for the existence of psi phenomena, as suggested by various recent meta-analyses" Storm, Lance, Tressolsi, Patrizio, 2013 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23294093 Testing the Storm et al.(2010) meta-analysis using Bayesian and frequentist approaches: reply to Rouder et al. (2013), American Psychological Association, Psychological Bulletin volume 139 issue 1|pages 248-54 doi=10.1037/a0029506 "Rouder et al. used a Bayesian approach, and we adopted the same methodology, finding that our case is upheld." Utts, Jessica, 1991, Replication and Meta-Analysis in Parapsychology, Statistical Science, volume 6, issue 4, 363-378, "The recent focus on meta-analysis in parapsychology has revealed that there are nonzero effects across studies, experiments and laboratories" Hastings, A.C., 1976 A confirmatory remote viewing experiment in a group setting, Proceedings of the IEEE volume 64, issue 10, pages 1544-1545, "A remote viewing experiment was conducted with a group of 36 persons who successfully identified, without apparent sensory communication, a target location chosen randomly and visited by two observers (p = 6 × 10 -7 )"
Beloff, John, 1984, The reality of psi, New Ideas in Psychology, volume 2, no 1, pages 51-55 "people can, on occasion interact with their external environment by means other than those of the recognised sensory and motor chanels"
And this is just a section of a few days in one year. For brevity's sake I will spare you the many, many other instances of the removal of cited, peer reviewed, published information that has been systematically removed from this article with no justification other than the personal opinion of the removing editor. I got more. Morgan Leigh | Talk 04:32, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
AFAIK Frontiers is predatory. tgeorgescu (talk) 11:07, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
E.g. the Global Consciousness Project proved that hardware random numbers generators will produce highly unlikely results. But what does that prove? Nothing. It proves nothing. Because there is no link from such results to real-world events. tgeorgescu (talk) 11:19, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These are not diffs. Simonm223 (talk) 13:17, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have provided you exact data and I don't have to WP:SATISFY your request for any particular way of presenting that data. Morgan Leigh | Talk 21:37, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I asked for diffs and you gave me a decontextualized textwall including an edit you said I made six years ago? I'm sorry but this is non-actionable. Simonm223 (talk) 22:26, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A particular sociologist's theory is not relevant here. What is relevant is wikipedia policy, which policies say that we include published, peer reviewed sources and we don't remove them with the only reason being editors individual opinions. Morgan Leigh | Talk 04:37, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A more simple point is that rational skeptics do have the power to define what counts as science. So, anyway, we reach the same conclusion: if parapsychology fails to convince rational skeptics, it is not a science. tgeorgescu (talk) 12:36, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But it has. Perhaps then you will take the word of renowned skeptic Christopher French, who has spent many years studying parapsychology and who has now come to the conclusion that parapsychology is a science.
"When I first became a sceptic, I formed a very negative view of parapsychology. Based upon what I was reading, it seemed to me that all parapsychologists were incompetent when it came to skills such as experimental design and statistical analysis. As I got to know more parapsychologists personally, including such intelligent and open-minded individuals as the first holder of the Koestler Chair in Parapsychology, the late Bob Morris, and the current holder, Caroline Watt, I realised that this was not necessarily true. It is understandable (and indeed perfectly legitimate) for skeptics to highlight examples of poor practice in parapsychology but this can give a very misleading, one-sided impression. Surely it is only fair to take account of good quality work within a discipline as well when judging the discipline as a whole? I dread to think how psychology would fare if it were to be judged only on the basis of the poorest work within the discipline!"
https://www.skeptic.org.uk/2021/09/why-i-now-believe-parapsychology-is-a-science-not-a-pseudoscience/
I am glad you brought this up. It is a good point and so I have added your some text in support of your point to the article. Morgan Leigh | Talk 22:16, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Parapsychological experiments offer correlations, no smoking gun, and certainly did not produce any useful technology based upon psi phenomena. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:24, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Morgan Leigh. Please don't disrupt Wikipedia to make a WP:POINT as you did here. This is becoming a WP:TE problem. - LuckyLouie (talk) 22:28, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, this isn't about "open mind" or "non-dogmatic". It is about the fact that nobody could prove that a causal mechanism exists. Computing correlations makes no sense if the causal mechanism is completely implausible in the first place. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:37, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations tgeorgescu (talk) 22:44, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dungeons and Dragons players may believe dice have personality and will because of anomalous results but it's really just noise in random data. The dice jail didn't really scare the dice straight. Simonm223 (talk) 22:59, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion appears to no longer be about removal of the Psychology sidebar and in any event needs an outdent. 5Q5|✉ 15:26, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Quelle: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Parapsychology