Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:28, 5 November 2007

	Parapsychology is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Misplaced Pages community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Article milestones Date Process Result July 19, 2007 Good article nominee Listed July 31, 2007 Peer review Reviewed July 31, 2007 Featured article candidate Not promoted September 11, 2007 Featured article candidate Promoted Current status: Featured article

This topic contains controversial issues, some of which have reached a consensus for approach and neutrality, and some of which may be disputed. Before making any potentially controversial changes to the article, please carefully read the discussion-page dialogue to see if the issue has been raised before, and ensure that your edit meets all of Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. Please also ensure you use an accurate and concise edit summary.

	This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
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

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

Archives

Archive 1 Nov 6, 2004

Archive 2 Nov 29, 2006

Archive 3 Feb 24, 2007

Archive 4 March 05, 2007

Archive 5 March 24, 2007

Archive 6 May 26, 2007

Archive 7 June 29, 2007

Archive 8 July 03, 2007

Archive 9 July 17, 2007

Archive 10 August 6, 2007

Archive 11 October 28, 2007

Please discuss changes

I just wanted to remind everyone that the parapsychology article is currently a featured article and that this was achieved through a long process of delicate consensus building. Certain wording choices were discussed at length on many sections, particularly the intro. If we could discuss major changes in wording that shift the tone of the article, or changes the meaning, on the talk page before installing the wording choice, it would go a long way to preserving the featured article status many editors worked hard in achieving. Thanks. --Nealparr 18:02, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

The changes recently made are POV, and should be reverted pending discussion. ——Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 18:05, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm hoping that serious changes will be discussed before insertion and that reversions will be discussed as well. The first step in losing FA status is edit wars. --Nealparr 18:08, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

The article has already become POV. It needs reversion or tags. ——Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 18:16, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Or discussion of what's POV about it. --Nealparr 18:24, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

That's right, Neal. Simply declaring that the article is POV without explanation is not a discussion. ScienceApologist 18:38, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Martin, Please elaborate on what is POV about it. Wikidudeman 18:40, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I could do without the "reported" in the first sentence. There's the tired argument of no qualifier necessary, but it's also inaccurate. Most parapsychological work occures in a lab where they go "looking for" psi phenomena. It's not investigating reports like your pop culture paranormal investigations / debunkery. --Nealparr 19:24, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

The first sentence says "Parapsychology (from the Greek: παρά para, "alongside" + psychology) is the study of reported paranormal psychological phenomena." How would you rephrase it? I do agree that some sort of qualifier is necessary as simply saying the "Study of Paranormal psychological phenomena" would be saying the phenomena exist, technically. How about:"Parapsychology (from the Greek: παρά para, "alongside" + psychology) is the study of psychological phenomena paranormal thought by some to have paranormal origins." Wikidudeman 19:27, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I think of parapsychology as being "the attempted academic study of purported paranormal phenomena". It isn't just the "study" because sometimes the people who try to "study" it are unsuccessful in their aims. ScienceApologist 20:24, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Well generally it's defined as the "study" of what are thought to be paranormal phenomena. If there is no genuine "studying" going on then it wouldn't really be parapsychology but something else. Wikidudeman 20:26, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think so. Take, for example, the Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research center. They attempted to study certain mind-matter connections but had various levels of success convincing others that they were actually studying such phenomena rather than running random number generators into the noise of machine limitations. That parapsychologists claim to study paranormal phenomena is obvious. That they actually study it is debatable. ScienceApologist 20:32, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

How would you phrase the first sentence? We don't want to sound too redundant or confusing by saying something like "the supposed study of supposed paranormal psychological phenomena" as that's quite encyclopedic. Wikidudeman 20:34, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Like this: Parapsychology (from the Greek: παρά para, "alongside" + psychology) is the attempted academic study of purported paranormal phenomena. ScienceApologist 20:36, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

"Attempted" is sooo POV. I can't go over and post President Bush attempts to be a good president in his article for the same reasons it'd be POV here.

Here's the oft-repeated discussion that comes up on Misplaced Pages regarding qualifiers and the paranormal:

Statement 1: Paranormal phenomena needs a qualifier because the phenomena may not exist.

Statement 2: Paranormal is itself the qualifier because the controversy over the existence of the phenomena is wrapped up in the term itself, which means among other things "not possible according to science". In other words, paranormal already means it may not exist and adding more qualifiers is beating a dead horse and possibly bad writing.

Both sides have been argued, and there was even an arbitration surrounding it where the arbs suggested the logic behind Statement 2 is sound. But none of that matters, here's why:

The Frequently Asked Questions of the Parapsychological Association reads: In addition, in scientific practice many of the basic terms used above are accompanied by qualifiers such as "apparent," "putative," and "ostensible." This is because many claims supposedly involving psi may not be due to psi, but to normal psychological or misinterpreted physical reasons.

Parapsychologists, or at least the notable organization in the field, extends the argument that the phenomena may or may not exist (the controversy already in the term paranormal) to the statement that the phenomena may or may not be paranormal. It is ostensibly paranormal. By this logic (and the PA source), I see nothing wrong with saying "ostensible paranormal phenomena".

Ostensible is not a qualifier on whether or not paranormal phenomena exists. It's a qualifier on whether the phenomena parapsychologists study is actually paranormal. Since the leading parapsychological association agrees, we can assume parapsychologists will agree. Many parapsychologists don't even like the word "paranormal" anyway. Since it's not making a statement on whether the paranormal exists, paranormalists really have no complaint basis, and it isn't contrary to the arbitration. Since it makes no statement that paranormal phenomena does exist, skeptics have no complaint basis either.

Everyone may not agree with "ostensible paranormal phenomena", but there's really no reason why they shouldn't. It fits, is accurate, and is something parapsychologists and skeptics can agree on, for different reasons of course : ) --Nealparr 20:58, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

ostensible is fine with me, but simply saying that "Parapsychology is the study of..." without qualifying the term study is sooo POV in my opinion. This is in part due to the historical nature of parapsychology. There was a time in psychology's infancy when parapsychology and psychology were almost indistinguishable. Indeed, in some people's living memory, "parapsychology" was much more integrated into mainstream academic study than it is today. Today, this is much less the case: very few academic departments are content to allow for study of ostensibly paranormal phenomena. ScienceApologist 21:10, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Well discussing it is good. Either way is fine with me as most readers don't really examine the exact wording of the sentences and base their world views on that. Though accuracy is our final goal. I want to encourage discussion and not edit warring. Let's not make any edits concerning this until there is a consensus reached. Wikidudeman 21:43, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

That will be fine, as soon as the recent non-consensus changes are reverted. Then we can discuss. ——Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 04:03, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Martinphi, you haven't explained what's POV about those changes. Here's the diffs between your revert and the current version . Can you explain what you think is POV about the red items? I don't like the qualifier "reported" because it's bad wording and wrong because most parapsych work occurs in the lab. Beyond "reported", the only other issue I have with it is the line that reads "of such poor quality and so poorly controlled that...". I don't have a problem with the neutrality of it (it's in the criticism section). The problem I have with it is that the wording is exclamatory and not encyclopedic. It's not "poor quality", it's "such poor quality". It's not "poorly controlled", it's "so poorly controlled". I think these sort of degree based statements are unencyclopedic, even in a criticism section. Like above when I said "attempted is sooo POV". In a sober, encyclopedic article, that would be worded simply as "attempted is POV". None of the red-lined items are so far off NPOV that it requires a revert, in my opinion. Some of the changes are basic grammar changes. --Nealparr 05:15, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, first, it isn't accurate: in modern times, it is mainly the study in the lab, not reports.

This:

"Many analysts of parapsychology hold that the entire body of evidence to date is of such poor quality and so poorly controlled that the entire field of parapsychology has produced no conclusive results whatsoever."

has simply made it more negative to parapsychology.

This:

"critic of parapsychology and has demonstrated that magic tricks can account for some apparently psychic phenomena.]]"

now needs sourcing or attribution, as demonstration needs a source much more than a belief. And it biases the article toward skepticism. I'm not sure how this plays out in an article about parapsychology. I believe it it technically accurate, but in an article which deals mainly with modern parapsychology, to switch suddenly to the whole field of the "psychic" leaves the reader thinking that Randi has demonstrated that some things which modern parapsychologists study can be replicated by magic. Thus, the edit is highly controversial, and tends to ruin the balance of NPOV.

And this:

"The European Journal of Parapsychology is independently published."

is irrelevant unless someone is trying to make it more and more clear how fringe parapsychology is. There is nothing technically wrong with it, but it is an example of POV pushing.

Now, some of this edit is understandable. I don't think it improved the article much, if any, but some of it is not POV. Overall, however, the intention and result was to bias the article.

There is another, really more important issue: the edits were knowingly non-consensual. They were forced into the article against consensus. This is against the spirit and rules of Misplaced Pages. ——Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 05:33, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll let the editors who made the changes respond to the other items, but I wanted to comment on the "EJoP is independently published" one because I thought that was a weird edit at first as well. It's not. I went looking for the publishers and was going to add that to the section when it occured to me that the reason it says "independently published" is because all the other items in that section go along the lines of "Such and such organization and their publication such and such". The EJoP is not a publication by an association where the others are, so it actually reads right. Not POV or a dig at fringeness. --Nealparr 06:05, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Why was "mainstream" dropped from this line: "To date, no evidence has been accepted by the >< scientific community as supporting the existence of paranormal phenomena." That's POV. Whoever made that change is pushing the point of view that parapsychologists (or other scientists who accept some of the data) are not a part of the scientific community, at all. It also used to read "not gained widespread acceptance". What happened to that wording? These wording changes are the significant shifts in tone I was talking about when I started this section. The earlier tone had gained consensus and FA status and significant changes like that threaten the status and stability -- and this is the intro section.

Let's start with that. Anyone opposed with changing "reported" to "ostensibly" and reinserting "mainstream" where it was removed. If so, why? Especially on the "mainstream" part. That was consensus. --Nealparr 06:14, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

James Randi is noted for demonstrating that magic tricks can approximate what many believe to be paranormal phenomena. That's why he's the amazing Randi, after all. There's nothing POV about stating this up front. ScienceApologist 11:18, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I've added the "mainstream" back as I agree with Nealparr on that note. Some folks who support parapsychology but are still scientists are considered "fringe" not non-scientists. Utts for example or others. Thus "mainstream" scientific community clarifies as some fringe parts of the scientific community accept parapsychology.

Finding a source that Randi has demonstrated that magic tricks can account for apparent paranormal abilities would not be hard.

The sentence "Many analysts of parapsychology hold that the entire body of evidence to date is of such poor quality and so poorly controlled that the entire field of parapsychology has produced no conclusive results whatsoever." is acceptable as it's just stating what the critics say. This is what most of them say. Wikidudeman 14:00, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Finding a source that Randi has demonstrated that magic tricks can account for apparent paranormal abilities would not be hard. Any person who has seen Randi's show and reviewed it is a source. There are plenty of reviews on the internet. Note that the caption doesn't say that Randi has demonstrated that all paranormal phenomena are done with the techniques of magic tricks, only that it is possible to use magic tricks to mimic paranormal phenomena. What, praytell, is so goddamn controversial about that statement? ScienceApologist 17:31, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea. Wikidudeman 17:38, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

The only content I have a slight problem with now is the Randi caption: it is of course indisputably true. It's just that the section on criticism is talking about parapsychology, and I think it might be hard to find a good enough source for saying that Randi has demonstrated that aspects of parapsychology -as opposed to psychic phenomena- can be accounted for by magic. The implication is that the psychic phenomena we're talking about are the ones parapsychologists hold up as evidence of psi. That's not true. I suggest just having the caption read "Stage magician and debunker James Randi is a well-known critic of parapsychology." This is not a huge deal, though.

The main issue with the article is the way it was edited: by force. ——Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 01:51, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Bullshit. You are trying to weasel your way out of Randi's deft criticism of the existence of psychic phenomena. Revert. ScienceApologist 17:04, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Copyedit question

Hi! I am a member of the WP:LoCE and am copyediting your article. This paragraph in the "Psychokinesis on random number generators" section confused me:

Major meta-analyses of the RNG database have been published every few years since appearing in the journal Foundations of Physics in 1986. PEAR founder Robert G. Jahn and his colleague Brenda Dunne say that the effect size in all cases was found to be very small, but consistent across time and experimental designs, resulting in an overall statistical significance. The most recent meta-analysis was published in Psychological Bulletin, along with several critical commentaries. The meta-analysis was composed of 380 studies, which some researchers say has produced an overall effect size that was very small but statistically significant.

Was the 1986 research performed by Jahn and Dunne, and did the recent meta-analysis support their findings? The paragraph's second and fourth sentences are nearly identical, but I wasn't sure how to correct it without losing or changing your intended meaning. Galena11 22:46, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Heh, good question. Yeah, when it says "effect size," it means positive effect size, that is to say, it supports the hypothesis that psi exists. And the effect was "statistically significant," meaning that there was, at most, a 5% chance that it could have happened by accident. Nice work Galena. ——Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 23:10, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Copyedit

This is a WikiProject, an area for focused collaboration among Wikipedians. New participants are welcome; please feel free to participate! Guide to WikiProjects Directory of WikiProjects

POV drift

for reasons i have explained elsewhere, i try to avoid substantial edits on this and related subjects. I have however restored a few wording that are more expressive of NPOV. figure legends are not the place for what needs more extended arguments. Randi has certainly shown that some purported psychic phenomena can be explained by trickery, he may believe that all are, and he may even be right, but that is something much harder to actually demonstrate & a figure legend is not the place to make overly expansive statements. I also changed one or two similar instances.

I think accepted compromise wording should be left alone, especially in legends and lede sections of featured articles. DGG (talk) 02:05, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

DGG, I wish you didn't avoid substantial edits on this and related subjects, but then you wouldn't be DGG. Oh well. ScienceApologist 02:23, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Heh. DGG really is able to get along with everyone. And the edits are excellent. ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 04:11, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Historical status of the subject

There is an issue in this article of framing: that is parapsychology had more status in the past than it currently enjoys today. That it is not a recognized field within the academy needs to be addressed forthrightly in this article. Currently, the lead sounds a bit like we are saying that there are currently mainstream research groups that conduct research in parapsychology. We all know that this is false. So we should, I believe, reword the lead and the relevant parts of the article to indicate that while the field had prominent adherents and proponents in the past, it has been steadfastly moving more and more toward and past the edges of academia. Today, it is highly contentious to associate the term with the standard accidents of academic scholarship including such terms as "study, "theories", "models", "experiments", "hypotheses", "tests", "observations", and "resesarch". I submit that these words need to be looked at and used only in the most judicious fashion throughout this article. Currently, the article is a bit too accommodating in these regards. ScienceApologist 22:40, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages featured articles
• Featured articles that have not appeared on the main page
• Old requests for peer review
• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• All unassessed articles
• Misplaced Pages copy editing
• WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors