Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:55, 5 November 2007

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Astral projection article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5Auto-archiving period: 3 months

Paranormal B‑class

This article falls under the scope of WikiProject Paranormal, which aims to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the paranormal and related topics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, you can edit the attached article, help with current tasks, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and discussions.ParanormalWikipedia:WikiProject ParanormalTemplate:WikiProject Paranormalparanormal B This article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

	Parapsychology (inactive)
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Parapsychology, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.ParapsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject ParapsychologyTemplate:WikiProject ParapsychologyParapsychology

Skepticism Start‑class Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

1 2

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Skepticism in this article

This article is about Astral projection. As such, it is clearly stated "Astral projection (or astral travel) is an interpretation of an out-of-body experience". Thus, this article is about some people's beliefs. Though it touches on science to some small degree, it is almost solely about the beliefs some people have about the non-controversial perception of going out of body. There are claims being made, but they are only from the perspective of the article's title. We are obligated to touch on criticism only to the extent that claims are being made that astral projection is more than a belief. Since such claims are barely touched on in the article, there is little obligation to include skepticism.

The ONLY objective claim covered in the article is "Dr. Charles Tart tentatively concluded that etheric projection may have objective validity." This is not enough excuse for major coverage of skepticism. –––Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 20:09, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Really? Godfinger and others now will be confused for they obviously believe it's real.--Svetovid 23:02, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Fine with me. –––Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 23:28, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I have made no statements as to what I personally believe regarding whether something leaves the body or not. I just believe that Svetoid's additions were inappropriate, and I had an issue with his statements about scientific method that is all.I simply believed the tone was inappropriate for Misplaced Pages.--Godfinger 09:00, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:NOTCENSORED "Misplaced Pages may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive..."--Svetovid 17:40, 26

August 2007 (UTC)

We have to keep the tone encyclopedic. Other encyclopedias don't sound that way. –––Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 21:39, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. The passage made the tone of the article seem amateurish . It is clear to me that Svetoid actually knows very little about the subject itself and simply wants to use the quote to mock the subject by insinuation. It is not appropriate. --Godfinger 09:30, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Besides which, there are some responsible skeptics who don't take that tone. We shouldn't tar all skeptics by making them seem amateurish attack dogs. –––Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 21:54, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, of course. In the interest of balance and neutrality, scepticism has it's legitimate place when it's done appropriately.--Godfinger 09:05, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Funny how you use the term sceptics and scepticism like it was some random opinion. It's science and scientists who see people who think they actually travel somewhere as childish and that's a very polite term.
This article also fails to strictly differentiate from the beginning between people who are aware that it's just a kind of mind trick used as an interesting experience or relaxation and people who actually think they have a mind and that this mind can travel.--Svetovid 23:34, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Scientific skepticism makes no mention of being a reference to "some random opinion". spazure (contribs) (review) 12:50, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

The quote that Svetovid seems so keen to include is not a scientific statement in any sense but an opinion.It reports no scientifc facts as such but merely expresses the opinion of one person who thinks that people who believe in astral projection are somehow childish. It is in fact an ad hominem attack, a logical fallacy that has nothing to do with the point being discussed. It is unfortunate that such a cheap rhetorical device is being attempted to be used here in the name of reason and truth.--Godfinger 22:37, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Funny how you and people similar to you stick to using logic (pointing out logical fallacies) in times it suits you and ignore it otherwise.
It's not an opinion of one person but a suggestion of a professional and reputable organization.
It's not an ad-hominem; believing in irrational, illogical and improvable is childish to say the least.--Svetovid 17:53, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

If you quoted a statement that reported something along the lines that a scientific experiment showed no empirical evidence that something leaves the body, rather than an opinion that people who believe such things are childish then I think it would be more acceptable-but the idea that people who believe in such things are childish is certainly debatable and is no more relevant than to say ,include in the atheism article that people are atheists because they are people who don't want to believe in God because they want to keep having on wild sex and getting drunk-an argument that has no doubt been put forward by some fundamentalist christians and muslims. Some of them no doubt belong to reputable organisations.But I'm, sure we would both agree that it would not be appropriate for the article--Godfinger 13:04, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I've had several experiences of astral projection in the past, all of which were far more realistic than my current experience of sitting here and typing on my keyboard. If it were rational to doubt my astral projection experiences, then it also must be rational to doubt my entire life. I don't tell people that they should believe me without experiencing it themselves, and I don't tell people that they should ignore scientific skepticism. However, it angers me that people like Svetovid would use an encyclopedic article to condemn people like me as "childish". Is it childish for me NOT to doubt every experience I've ever had?

Is there a larger article about skepticism and subjective experience anywhere? It seems to me that this is a pretty common problem. The content of one's subjective experience cannot be proved or disproved with current technology. The only evidence for these experiences is that there seems to be many who have experienced them. It is also impossible to prove or disprove whether one's subjective experience has any basis in some kind of reality. A great example of this is the story of the guy who dreamed he was a butterfly. The dream was so realistic that when he woke, he didn't know if he was a man who dreamed he was a butterfly or a butterfly dreaming he was a man. If one experiences traveling to another realm, outside of this known universe, how could it be proved or disproved? There is the possibility of those who've had these experiences coroberating them with one another, however a skeptic could say that they've all just read the same book. Do we really need to talk about all of this within the context of this article? I don't think so. There should be an outside article about the difficulty in proving subjective thought that can be linked to.

Now if there is a theory of astral projection with a basis in the brain, it should be expanded. But why call it a skeptic model? Is this the official term in the literature? If one believes the experience is confined to the brain/mind, that is not skepticism of belief, but belief itself. A skeptic would question all the models, including the so called skeptic model. Brandon1001 19:07, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Any real objections not based on editors' POV?

So far there has been none. All editors opposing the statement have obvious bias and cannot state a single objective reason why a stance of a professional organization cannot be in the article, especially while opinions of random charlatans are accepted.--Svetovid 23:43, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Here's one: stop edit warring. At this point, you are a vandal. ——Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 23:53, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

The only vandalism would be opposing well sourced and appropriate edit based on your personal opinion.--Svetovid 09:51, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Edit warring is not an option, please follow the Misplaced Pages:Resolving disputes Policy to handle this dispute. Dreadstar † 02:13, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, do that. ——Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 03:54, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I believe the opening paragraph of this article-that Astral Projection is an interpretation of an OBE experience is sufficient to justify the inclusion of much of the material in this article. Astral Projection is a TYlegitimate object of study in it's own right, and it has been written about in a substantial body of literature devoted to the subject. I therefore believe that the subject matter in this article genuinely reflects what is known about ' Astral Projection' as opposed to a strictly physiological interpretation of the OBE experience which I believe is more relevant to the OBE article than to the Astral Projection article. Svetovid's edits are quite clearly disruptive as they reflect a personal and dismissive opinion of this particular subject. An approach which does not add any value to an article on Astral Projection as such. I believe that the material presented in this article is an accurate and factual account of what is known about 'Astral Projection' as opposed to the more specific 'OBE' experience discussed elsewhere.The opinions of the editors of this article are no more biased than the opinions of those who believe in the Big Bang Theory or who contribute to articles on Iceland or Islam. It is not the place of editors to belittle a subject just because they don't believe in it.--Godfinger 18:08, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

The article does not make claims except to portray an interpretation of the OBE. This is not an article which deals with proof, and therefore it also does not deal with skepticism to any great extent, any more than religion articles do. Nor do we bash the POVs we write about. ——Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 21:54, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree. The only skepticism needed IMO is the line that is already there which states that the only evidence of astral projection is in testimonials, nothing more needs to be said. Anton H 13:35, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for proving my statement that your only argument is your personal opinion.--Svetovid 17:09, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I noticed that all of the links were to sites dealing with skepticism. I don't condemn the inclusion of these links, but I'm appalled that non-skeptical links are omitted. As a rational person AND one who has experienced astral projection, I would like to see links to sites that are open to astral projection, but without a bias towards religion or "new age". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.1.124.88 (talk) 17:25, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Improving the definition of Astral Projection

I propose that something be done about improving the definition of Astral Projection to find a way forward rather than indulge in endless edit wars. Despite Svetovid's views of the subject I do believe that the subject matter of Astral Projection has a legitimate place in Misplaced Pages as those who are familiar with the subject know that there is a body of literature that concerns the subject-a literature that deals with descriptions and techniques that can be practised by anyone who wishes to explore the subject. Whether something leaves the body or whether there exist other realms of being in which the mind can travel to-is something of which sceptics such as Svetovid claim there is no scientific evidence for. However, I do not personally think that the study of conciousness and the experiences of conciousness is beyond some sort of systematic investigation that could be considered 'scientific'. However, much of the literature of Astral Projection is of an 'occult' nature and so, I will suggest that the interpretation of astral Projection be defined as an 'occult' interpretation of the OBE or experiences which suggest some sort of OBE experience. Given this-I believe that the insistence on scientific or sceptical models becomes less relevant to the article. Whereas, a physiological explanation of the OBE experience might be appropriate for the OBE article, I would stress that the subject of Astral Projection is something that goes beyond the mere experience of an OBE and so should not be subject to the sort of critical angle that Svetovid seems to be taking. It would also mean that the tag that Svetovid seems to insist be paced at the top of the article could be removed unless of course the facts that Svetovid dispute are more to do with the accuracy of reporting on the occult interpretation rather than on the sceptical interpretation of the OBE experience. However, I think that this is probably unlikely to be the case. --Godfinger 20:21, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. The tag is of no importance to me- I don't really care about them. I've had extensive experience in this area of Misplaced Pages, and no one yet has found a way to prevent what has happened here- certainly not by tweaking the content. How about using "Astral projection (or astral travel) is an paranormal or occult interpretation of an out-of-body experience achieved either..." The word paranormal does more to define the thing. It could also be used instead of "occult," because I think it may have less cult-like connotations than occult does. Thoughts? ——Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 01:07, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Maybe 'paranormal' is a better description.. I thought about that myself. Or possibly something like " Astral Projection is a paranormal or occult interpretation" . I'm not really fussed-if you think 'paranormal' is better then I would be happy with that. I just think we need to find something that is acceptable for the Misplaced Pages-and I certainly think a better definition would help.--Godfinger 11:54, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Changed the wording from 'Occult' to 'Paranormal' interpretation as I think it is a more accurate description anyway.--Godfinger 12:03, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Astral projection is real.

Astral projection is real. It happens to everyone, even if they aren't aware of it. I have had it happen to me, and I don't care what some people think some guy in a white coat who observes and experiments with physical things thinks about the subject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RyanParis (talk • contribs) 09:47, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Ha, ha, I rest my case.--Svetovid 10:50, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Very glad to hear it. ——Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 21:04, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

History of Astral Projection

I think this article would benefit enormously if a section on the history of Astral Projection were included. There is a brief but uncited suggestion of the ancient roots of this subject but if anyone can put together a section on it's history-that not only includes references to ancient knowledge but something of the findings of such investigators as Muldoon and Monroe and any other writers of note (I know Monroe has already been mentioned but he could be included in the history too) -I think would it be a useful addition to this article. I could try do it myself when I have the time but I think such a section would enhance the value of this article --Godfinger 14:42, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

That would be really great. I don't have the sources to do it, and although I've read Monroe I'm not familiar enough to really do a history. ——Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 21:14, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I came across a recently published book that included a chapter on the history of Astral Projection.I can't remember the author's name but he had a sort of Monroe approach to the subject. I'm kicking myself for not buying it but at least it had some references to develop the subject so I'll look out for it .I'm pretty busy at the moment but i'll try and put something together when I can-but as you know it is a question of getting the sources together.--Godfinger 18:34, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Cool (-: ——Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 19:46, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

External Links

There are 4 external links, all of which lead to skeptical websites. I'm glad that those links are included, but I also think that there should be links to sites that support astral projection from rational and unbiased perspectives. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.1.124.88 (talk) 17:49, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I added a link to Explorations in Consciousness, which I found to be considerably unbiased. It doesn't cover astral projection from one particular angle, such as "new age". It also includes a variety of other related topics like out-of-body experiences, lucid dreaming, and extra sensory perception. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.1.124.88 (talk) 18:05, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I added a link to the official website of the Monroe Institute. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.1.119.179 (talk) 01:33, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

How can be support of astral projection unbiased and rational!?--Svetovid 01:35, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Simply because there is positive evidence for the existence of astral projection (testimonials), and there is a lack of negative evidence disproving astral projection. Note that a lack of evidence is not evidence itself giving weight against an idea. It seems that rather then being skeptical, you have quite strong beliefs that astral projection does not exist. Since there is no evidence against astral projection, I'd have to say your belief rests on faith alone! Brandon1001 19:30, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Monroe Institute

Editor Martin insists on inclusion of external link to the Monroe Institute because it's a source used several times in the article.
This is an unsatisfactory reasons since using this institute as a source is controversial. And despite the official label of a nonprofit organization, their commercial efforts are obvious through the promotion of their products on Misplaced Pages in the MI article.--Svetovid 01:35, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

It's notable not because it's used as a source -is it?- but because it was founded by one of the main sources. What the other article does isn't relevant to this one. However, I don't see any special reason to keep it, either, so have your way, unless other editors feel differently. ——Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 01:44, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Robert Monroe was arguably the most important figure concerning astral projection, whether or not you agree with his views. I can see nothing in your argument that justifies the removal of the link to the Monroe Institute. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.1.124.88 (talk) 22:19, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I see that somebody has once again removed the link. I won't add it again until this dispute is resolved. This time, the argument given for it its removal was that it wasn't relevant to our readership. If Robert Monroe or his research aren't relevant, then I suppose none of the links are relevant. Either we should reinsert the link to the Monroe Institute, or we should remove all of the links. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.1.119.179 (talk) 02:34, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

We have internal links to Monroe Institute and Robert Monroe; why do we need to link to the external one? How does that help us? El_C 02:39, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't know the rules on links, but I think there is nothing wrong with a link to the institute, since it is founded by, as mentioned, maybe the most important figure in astral projection. On the other hand, it is internally linked. Consider this, and I'll support the majority. ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 04:55, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Using terms such as "model"

Since the only explanation for "astral projection" is the skeptical idea, giving equal footing to all three "models" (and even calling them "models") is unreasonable. ScienceApologist 21:55, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

• B-Class paranormal articles
• Unknown-importance paranormal articles
• WikiProject Paranormal articles
• Start-Class Skepticism articles
• Low-importance Skepticism articles
• WikiProject Skepticism articles