Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:52, 23 March 2007

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

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
1
2
3
4

Latest edits

Noclevername, nice work on the recent tweaks. You've done a very good job of keeping neutral wording, thanks. --Minderbinder 12:31, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Why, thank you Milo, I'm glad you liked our work. Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 19:49, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, and thanks to Martinphi for his additions. It's an ongoing process; for every unsupported opinion we trim off, two more grow in its place... Noclevername 19:53, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

MAYBE iyou should bring all of the a"unsported" claims here" so that we can work together to give them support like <--fro examle citation or other things~!!!') Smith Jones 22:35, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

?? As clearly as I can understand what you're saying, that's not the purpose of Misplaced Pages (see Misplaced Pages:What Misplaced Pages is not for reasons why). Misplaced Pages's supposed to be a source of reliable (or at least confirmable) information, not speculation. Noclevername 19:56, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

PARAYSYCHOLOGY.ORG

http://www.parapsychology.org/ i just adde dth a ppage to this article. a it says that it is one of the official paraspychology internet influences and it hink that if this can be proved verifiabled then it can be a good research tool for compelteing this encyclopedic aritlce. Smith Jones 22:39, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Please, please, PLEASE try to write more clearly. Seriously. -- Noclevername 20:27, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

do you have anything constructive tos ay ahout my site? Smith Jones 23:31, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Smith, if you are dyslexic or something, and can't type more clearly, would you please tell us? Otherwise, would you please be more careful? Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 03:24, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Pseudoscience

If you would like to put this article in the pseudoscience category, please give a WP:V source for doing so. Let this post stand in for a citation request on the pseudoscience Cat in the article. If you find a good, NPOV source, I would also like to put it in the science Cat. This is because it is connected to parapsychology, which is a science. I can source that to Hyman, Randi, Alcock, and the AAAS. Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 04:50, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I found af ew source here that talk about psychics and psuedoscience.

here is a book about it

here is info by a methatmatican

some debate here on a sciecne discussionb oard (not sure it if ill be will accepted)

a books that you care to buy about skepticalism and psuedoscinece and even psychics too

oh, and not dyslexic i just typ3e in a hurry. i'll tr y to slow down but you could make an effort to understand me better. Smith Jones 22:20, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the sources Smith (: Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 00:09, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

As far as I am concerned, it can stay in the pseudoscience Cat, (with proper sourcing) but only if it is also in the science Cat. There are plenty of sources for relating it to science. Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 02:25, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd say put Parapsychology under science, but leave Psychic where it is ("psychic" isn't the name of a science or a pseudoscience, just a potential subject of study). It's sort of like putting "automobile" under Physics just because a car engine uses the laws of thermodynamics. Noclevername 06:47, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

You're right- but the article is now under Cat pseudoscience. I'd say take it out of both science and pseudoscience. Is that what you mean? Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 19:50, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

The theorectical underpinnings of psychics are not a science (like physics) but really on principles that according to the pseudoscience article, match a pseudoscience. I am inclined to sway to Noclevername's argument above though. Shot info 23:46, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Then we are in agreement. Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 23:55, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Blog?

This site ] appears to be a blog. As such it fails WP:EL and should be removed. Comments?

Personal website- but it isn't a blog, is it? Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 23:58, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, my own terminology there, a blog to me is really a personal website. Either way, I'm after comments to see if this link is suitable under ] specifically point 11. Shot info 00:02, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I think ,that the link should stayt because there needs to be equal amounts ofPostivie PSychic informaiton to make sure that there is POV. Smith Jones

From the background information on him, he appears to be a well-known professional journalist, if true, he would be acceptable under WP:V#Self-published_sources_.28online_and_paper.29, as well as the exception to point number 11 "except those written by a recognized authority". Dreadlocke ☥ 00:20, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't necessarly see him as a "recognized authority" authority on the subject (psychic) nor as a RS given Dawkin's comments in Richard_Milton_(scientific_researcher). So I'm questioning it's use here in the article. After all, if it mets RS and EL then it is more appropriate over at JREF itself. "equal amounts ofPostivie PSychic informaiton" wtf. Shot info 00:37, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Is he a well-known professional journalist? From a quick scan, it looks like he's done a lot of work and research on paranormal related issues. BTW, Dawkins' comments don't break him as an RS, that's an issue defined by Misplaced Pages guidelines and rules, not just someone's opinion. I've quoted the relevant Misplaced Pages rules for issues like this, that's how we make the determination. Dreadlocke ☥ 00:42, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I took it out and put in the PA instead- in case Y'all didn't notice. Any objections? Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 00:56, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, fine by me. I wasn't attached to it at all. Just discussing the rules.. Dreadlocke ☥ 01:23, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

"a person with the ability to produce psychic phenomena" doubly revisited

It appears that Category:Purported psychics is not going to be changed to Category:Psychics. I prefer the second, for simplicity, but I share others' concerns that the latter name could imply that psychic powers actually exist. However, if we changed Misplaced Pages's definition of a psychic to "a person who claims to have the ability to produce psychic phenomena" (no italics, of course), it would then make sense to rename the category to Category:Psychics, as this would no longer imply a POV according to Misplaced Pages's definition of a psychic. Thoughts? Λυδαcιτγ 21:09, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Note that this definition is supported by at least one dictionary: Dictionary.com's Random House-based dictionary defines a psychic as "a person who is allegedly sensitive to psychic influences or forces; medium." Λυδαcιτγ 21:13, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

The definition is in the definite minority. It is also misleading, as it makes the assumption that the powers don't exist- which is OR, and POV (see parapsychology page, and others). It would be like saying that anyone is a psychologist if they hang an sign out saying they are. No, no matter what definitions you find which say this, it is not a correct definition. In fact, I don't believe that this is what the definition you site means. Rather, they expect the reader to know that when they say "A psychic is someone who claims to have psi powers," they mean the reader to know that what they mean is "A psychic is defined as someone who has psi powers. But, these powers don't exist." So the latter is really the only definition there is.

Audacity, I also shared your concern. However, I would much rather have a clear definition of "psychic," and keep the Category, than weasel the definition. This present solution is much the lesser of two evils. Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 21:44, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

What if Edward Cayce admitted he was a faker, then you would have the worlds most famous psychic is not a psychic anymore, under your definition. What about a person who does cold reading on tv and it says "psychic" on their tax return--is he not a psychic? Audacitie's definition is the correct one: A person who is alleged to have psychic powers. Even if that person themself doesn't believe, or isn't sure that she's a medium. I know psychic powers exist--and most people probably demonstrate psi phenomena a few times in thier lifetimes, does that make us all psychics? I know I'm not a psychic. Maybe the problem is that the word has two definitions: sensitive to influences or forces of a nonphysical or supernatural nature. a person who is allegedly sensitive to psychic influences or forces--sounds like the same thng, but they aren't, but they are all psychics whether they are really sensitive or not. That's why this changing the name to Purported Psychics is BOGUS! Puddytang 04:52, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

"What if Edward Cayce admitted he was a faker, then you would have the worlds most famous psychic is not a psychic anymore, under your definition. "

Correct

"What about a person who does cold reading on tv and it says "psychic" on their tax return--is he not a psychic?"

The IRS is a victim of skepticism- this is about legal terminology, not psychics.

"and most people probably demonstrate psi phenomena a few times in thier lifetimes"

Yes.

Well, I'd much rather change the Cat than change the definition. However, there are definitions which one could use which could accomodate everyone.

Here is what we could do:

The term psychic comes from the Greek word psychikos, meaning "of the soul, mental," which is in turn derived from the Greek word psyche (soul/mind). It was first used by French astronomer Camille Flammarion, who was also a noted spiritualist and psychical researcher. The word psychic is used in several ways. It can mean anyone who performs mentalist magic, or otherwise engages in performances traditionally labeled psychic. Or it can mean a person who is genuinely able to produce psi phenomena. It can also refer to the magical or psi phenomena themselves.

This is quite confusing and clumsy, but we could do it. What you are basically proposing, though, (without my addition) is to take any mention of the fact that the phenomena might be genuine out of the defintion. That's why Milo likes it (um... wrong page, see Talk:Mediumship).

You are also eliminating a really good generall policy: define the phenomena as real, then say that there is skepticism about it. It is just an invitation to weasels. It is what the skeptics have been trying to do on here for months, in an attempt to discredit anything and everything psychic. Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 05:08, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd appreciate if you didn't put words in my mouth. My objection isn't that it says that it might be genuine, it's that it says that it is genuine, which is POV and unverifiable. Some people believe it's genuine, some don't, but at this point it hasn't been verifiably proven by WP standards - what you call "weasel" is just using a NPOV description of the fact that we're talking about something that is a proposed concept and not a proven one. I think any of these proposed changes would be an improvement, although the last would be more NPOV if it said "It can also refer to the alleged/purported/claimed (pick one or an alternative) magical or psi phenomena themselves."

As for "define the phenomena as real, then say that there is skepticism about it." that's not how wikipedia works. To define it as real, we need a reliable source saying it's real (and the more extraordinary the claim, the more/better sources we need). Good luck taking that approach at something like Bigfoot, Time cube, or Unicorn. Or heck, just try going to Jesus and "defining" him as the son of God, mentioning somewhere later that not everyone believes that. --Minderbinder 12:32, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

No, it doesn't say it is genuine. That is not true. It says what the definition of the word is. Then later it says that some people think there is no such thing. That is both accurate and NPOV, whereas defining a psychic as anyone who says they are psychic is POV and not accurate. As far as bigfoot and Jesus etc., I tried to define psychics according to the PA, which is the same as saying that "According to Christians, Jesus is the Son of God," which is true and NPOV. But you reverted me on that. Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 20:17, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

When exactly was that version I reverted? Looking back, I can't find a version that said "according to the PA". And claiming that there's a difference between "define the phenomena as real" and "say it is genuine" is splitting hairs. You can't just throw "defined as" into a fringe definition to make it NPOV. --Minderbinder 20:52, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics