Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 06:43, 19 April 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.

Physics B‑class High‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics 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.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics B This article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article was nominated for deletion on January 31, 2007. The result of the discussion was Keep.

This article was nominated for deletion on February 1, 2007. The result of the discussion was Keep.

Archives
Archive 1: 2003 — August 2006 Archive 2: August 2006 — December 2006 Archive 3: December 2006 March 2007 Archive 4: March 2007 April 2007

Parapsychology

Placing a fact tag on the Parapsychology entry is inappropriate. The parapsychology entry cites a statement from the Russian Academy of Sciences published in Izvestiya on July 17, 1998, and republished in the Jan/Feb 1999 issue of Skeptical Inquirer (and subsequently republished on QuackWatch). As a proclamation from an Academy or specialized society, it meets the criteria necessary for the subject's inclusion in the top tier. -- LuckyLouie 02:00, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

The citation request is for the definition of parapsychology, as the edit summary said. I would have fixed it for you, but any actual edits I do on this page get reverted- they even reverted it when I took "cold reading" out from under parapsychology. Parapsychology does not study bigfoot. Look at the parapsychology and paranormal pages. Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 03:02, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Also, the statement is not a statement by the Russian Academy of Sciences. The statement is a letter from some members of various organisations (including the RAS) and some other individuals to a newspaper. It is far from clear, and indeed highly doubtful, that it has any official status.Davkal 08:06, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Additionally, that source doesn't use the word parapsychology, not even once! --Annalisa Ventola _{(Talk | Contribs)} 19:43, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

1. The letter published in Skeptical Inquirer has already been dropped.

2. The main item has already been renamed to be in line with the actual RAS. Simões (/_contribs) 19:53, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Why remove the second RAS source? Seemed a perfectly good use of Quackwatch as a convenience link. thx, Jim Butler 02:16, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't cover anything the first one doesn't also (essentially) cover, and the first one has the advantage of explicitly stating that the letter is from the RAS. Simões (/_contribs) 02:18, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

The Iowa Academy of science

This appears to be a private organisation set up by a few people with a fancy name. It may be quite a laudible organisation in its way, but how this can be taken to represent a broad consensus of scientific thinking is beyond me. BTW, I'm thinking of setting up the "Stroud Green Academy of Science" next week, anybody like me to issue to a statement saying something is a pseudoscience. Five quid a throw, and you get your Wiki source.Davkal 08:28, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

You're kidding, right? The organization set up by "a few people" in 1875. A record of their history is kept by the State Historical Society of Iowa. They're private in the sense that they're a 501(c)3, but as they note themselves:

The Iowa Academy of Science has, from its founding, made an impact on the practical scientific research taking place in the State of Iowa. Academy Members called for a Geological Survey of Iowa at the first Annual Meeting of the new Academy. In 1892, the Iowa legislature established the survey, which continues to serve the State to this day.

Membership had grown to 43 by 1890. Recognizing the importance of recording scientific achievements in Iowa, the Iowa General Assembly began funding the Proceedings of the Iowa Academy of Science in 1892.

And they grew:

In 1919, the Iowa Academy of Science reached 350 members, making it the largest State Academy in the US. By this time the Academy had begun presenting papers by scientific field. There were 60 botanists, 30 chemists, 40 geologists, 18 mathematicians, 12 physicians, 30 physicists, 60 zoologists, and 100 unclassified members.

Presently:

Today, the Academy includes more than 750 members. Each member can join up to four of the Academy's 20 sections. The Academy continues to hold Annual Meetings drawing more than 250 participants and involving more than 100 scientific presentation each year. The Academy published the Journal of the Iowa Academy of Science, a peer reviewed and indexed journal. The Academy manages the Iowa Science Foundation which provides $40,000 in research funds each year. Newer IAS programs include the Iowa Science Teachers Section (ISTS) Fall conference and state sponsorship of Project WET and the GLOBE Program.

They're even affiliates of the AAAS, a status which the parapsychology crowd here has been so adamant about its apparent indication of scientific credibility. Did you even glance at their website before coming here? Simões (/_contribs) 13:55, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes I looked at their website and that's what made me say what I said above (the statement itself is also laughably simplistic). In response to the points you make, a hearty "so what" seems to be called for. This whole article seems to be about cherry-picking a claim from here, there and everywhere in order to support (push) a particular POV. The peculiar definitions at the start for instance: "one or more national- or regional-level, cross-disciplinary Academies of Science" seems to have been chosen specfically to allow such sources to be used, rather than a proper defintion being given followed by appropriate sources. A point here being that what constitutes (pseudo)science is not a scientific question in the first place and so maybe scientists are not the appropriate people to be answering it. "Iowa" statement itself, for example, is full of empty unsourced assertions - it is not at all clear that it would meet any criterion of scientific rigour, and appears to me to be little more than a few people giving voice to their prejudices. Davkal 14:30, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Your response is a little beyond incredible. But you should go ahead and read this article's talk page discussion before suggesting why and how we might have chosen the top-tier standard. Simões (/_contribs) 14:34, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

From what I can gather I've got it exactly right.Davkal 14:42, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

NDEs

We have this. "Near-death experiences are experiences reported by persons who nearly died or who experienced clinical death and then revived. Supernatural explanations are many despite copious naturalistic models that would account for such an experience. We simply do not have a naturalstic model that can account for conscious experience without brain function. Skeptical Express might say we do, but we dont. If you want to include scientific statements of this kind then we need solid scientific sources. The writing is also POV in the extreme. For example, "copius".Davkal 14:40, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Third category

Why don't we have a third category including examples of pseudoscience identified by philosophers of science. Then we can include, evolutionary psychology, Darwinisn, neodarwinism, cosmology, Dark Matter, Eugenics, big-bang theory, memetics, and many more.Davkal 14:55, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

See WP:UNDUE. Statements by mainstream groups are more likely to represent mainstream sci consensus. thx, Jim Butler 02:24, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Since when was the Church of Scientism a mainstream group?

Since when was an ideologically motivated advocacy group a mainstream group?

Since when was the Skeptics' society a mainstream group?

One answer should suffice. poocDavkal 02:30, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Again, I see you are making disruptive edits, , , , and and leaving angry Talk page messages and edit summaries condemning scientific skepticism (calling it the "Church of Scientism"). It would be better if you read the Talk page history regarding the relevant sections to get a background for reasoning behind how they are currently written. You could then participate in the discussion and put forward your ideas on how to make the article better. Making angry deletions is not the way to go about it. Please reconsider your actions. -- LuckyLouie 03:02, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I am not condemning "scientific scepticism", I am going along with view that Michael Sheremer and his organisation are, or are at least sometimes described as, pseudosceptics. That is, like CSI, it is far from clear that genuine inquiry is at the root of their philosophy rather than denial. I therefore think it POV pushing to describe such groups as "mainstream". Davkal 12:32, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Rv. The entry under "purported pseudoscience" is sourced per section header, and the other material is an accurate statement of how and among whom scientific consensus works. The problems caused by this sort of noncompliant editing exemplify the rationale behind Citizendium. (I may be taking that fork in the road soon and leaving this project altogether, or significantly curtailing my participation. Too high of a signal-to-noise ratio at WP.) cheers, Jim Butler 03:38, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Just to note: I long ago advocated either (1) an inclusion criteria based on category inclusion (thereby distributing the arguments to the articles themselves, where they belong) or (2) a "referred to as pseudoscience" inclusion criteria -- either of which avoids these otherwise inevitable and unending arguments. Fireplace 14:33, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

(1) From WP:CITE: "Misplaced Pages articles and categories cannot be used as sources."

(2) That makes up part of the criterion for the entire list.

There's no argument with Davkal so much as waiting for him to do something that will get himself blocked (again).

Simões (/_contribs) 18:03, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

There was no WP:CITE problem as the proposal was never to use the article as the source, but to reach through the article to the sources found therein, thus distributing the arguments to the editors of the actual articles. The actual objection to that idea was the thought that a list should include more information than the category (and, I didn't find this convincing because the list, unlike the category, would concentrate all the sources in one location). Fireplace 18:13, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I was actually focusing on using category membership as a source. We can't do that, either. I actually put forth your plan before, but people weren't buying it because there's no real support for that method of citation in WP:CITE or elsewhere. Simões (/_contribs) 21:26, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a good justification for an exception to the guideline. Fireplace 21:49, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

The intro to the second section is OR. It is speculation from editors here. The obvious answer to why many of the things on the list have not been identified as pseudoscince by mainstream scientific bodies is that they are not pseudoscience at all. That being so, it is not even good quality OR or speculation. And as to all the talk of disruptive or non-compliant editing etc., Wiki has rules, and those rules apply to all articles. Just because a small group of editors feel they are in the right does not exempt them from providing sources. Nor does it make the removal of unsourced speculation disruption. I have no interest what arguments yo have put forward for your research, I want to know who (outside this talk page) said it, and I want the claims sourced appropriately.Davkal 12:20, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Sources

Just so there is no misunderstanding about the original research tag. It has been added because of these two claims (both of which have had fact tags for several days):

"The subject has yet find its way into education, law, and/or business to the extent that it motivates an organization to make a statement on it.

"The subject is not regarded as pseudoscientific by a sufficiently large number of scientists (from multiple fields), which would be necessary for a statement on it to pass.

These points, it seems to me, are highly speculative, misleading and probably wrong. That is, a good reason why, e.g., Elves, Gnomes, Pixies and Fairies have not been identified as pseudoscience by a mainstream scientific body is that they are so far from being pseudoscience that nobody in their right mind would call them such. That Michael Shermer's organisation does call them pseudoscience, is simply an indication of how far beyond the mainstream the pseudosceptics have gone and provides, I think, a strong indication of why the views of such groups should not form the basis for a supposedly objective Wiki article. That last point, however, is secondary. We still need sources for the two speculative reasons identified above. Davkal 08:27, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Rollback

I just rolled back one edit because it appears that the last edit allowed for a spelling error and deletion of SmackBot's date processing. -- Levine2112 01:29, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I've removed both the OR tag and the pointless fact-tags, cf. scientific consensus (and refs therein) and Misplaced Pages:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Making_necessary_assumptions. --Jim Butler 04:35, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

The way to deal with fact tags is to give sources. The two tags points are, as noted above, highly speculative. I don't belive anybody has said these things and I don't even believe they are true. That is, I think one of the reasons that no statement is forthcoming from mainstream scientific bodies as to the pseudoscientific nature of some of these topics is that nobody in their right mind would call them pseudoscience. If you want the article to say that the reasons given are the actual reasons then it has to be sourfed to a very specific source and it will pobably have to actually be attributed to someone explicitly. For example, "so-and-so suggests that the reason why these topics...." Davkal 11:08, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I note the tags have been deleted and no sources provided. If these claims have been made then please cite the sources. To say the addition of the tags is POV is nonsense. Davkal 11:55, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I note also the several other edits by another editor have been reverted along with the removal of the tags.Davkal 11:57, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

That would be me. I don't much know what the details of this issue are, but there do seem to be some arbitrary definitions in the section in question. Jefffire 12:08, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

"Arbitrary" is a very euphemistic way of putting it.Davkal 12:09, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I am personally inclined to agree with Martin's recent edit. They remove the points of contention and in reality the sentences removed didn't really add much encyclopaedic content anyway. However I find the tactic of adding a tag then deleting the information a few days later rather dubious. Several weeks seems to be the norm outside of pseudo-world (IMO). Mind you I think mediation would be proper in circumstances such as these. Shot info 05:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Well of course Shot info, you are completely right on this, and if LuckyLouie hadn't removed the tags (!!!) here (talk about disruptive editing), that would have been the procedure followed. This kind of disruptive POV editing, which takes advantage of greater numbers, is the reason these pages are in such contention. Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 05:41, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Which is why WP recommends consensus but recognises sometimes mediation is necessary. You should note that "greater numbers" is representative of the WP Community, which while you may not agree with, is a fact of WP. BTW for the record, I disagree with tag bombing. Shot info 06:20, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

And reverting tag bombing is not an example of disruptive editing. -- LuckyLouie 06:37, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Two citation requests on two paragraphs of OR is not bombing. Removing them is disruptive editing. Please don't do that again.

No matter what the community thinks, NPOV is non-negotiable, and OR is still prohibited. Misplaced Pages is not a democracy, and sometimes consensus is not necessary. POV and OR removal from articles are two of those times. Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 06:49, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

That's true, the policies as laid out by the Community are non-negotiable. But that's per WP:NPOV and WP:OR not necessarily certain interpretations thereof. BTW, you should come over to Stephen Barrett there are some editors who need to be reminded of the policies :-) Shot info 07:26, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Martinphi: "No matter what the community thinks" ... "sometimes consensus is not necessary" ... uh, sorry, WP:CONSENSUS is an official policy, which (as Shot info correctly says) is how content-guiding policies are applied. And you're surprised this exists? --Jim Butler 07:33, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

No. "Neutral point of view of a fundamental Misplaced Pages principle. According to Misplaced Pages co-founder Jimmy Wales, NPOV is "absolute and non-negotiable."" That means, no matter what anyone thinks, NPOV is the rule. So is WP:ATT which includes no OR. No matter what anyone thinks, these two stand. No editor has to seek community support in upholding them.

Jim Butler, if you really believe what you say, you need to read the two policies again.

Shot info is right that they are laid down by the community, but I'm not so sure that if the entire Misplaced Pages community besides the board of directors wanted to violate NPOV, that it would be allowed. Also correct that interpretations vary, and aren't all valid. I thought that the two paragraphs in question were pretty clearly OR- though I wouldn't have challenged them if Davkal hadn't done it first. But removing the fact tags was pretty bad.

I'll look at that page when I have time (: Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 07:53, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

The reason for the removal of the fact tags (twice) was that they were POV driven. What POV is this? The POV that unsourced, unbrindled speculation shouldn't be in articles. The point is (the point made above several times) is that the claims that were tagged/removed were simply the thoughts of the editors here. If this is going to be allowed then Wiki just becomes a free-for-all. Being of the opinion that this would be a bad thing seems to me entirely appropriate.Davkal 09:25, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Skepical organisations

I have changed "mainstream scientific skepticism bodies" to "private skeptical organisations" because that is what they are. There is no such thing, as far as I am aware, of a "mainstream scientific skepticism body" inasmuch as I could set one up tomorrow, and what I set up would be far more neutrally and accurately described as a "private skeptical organisation". For someone who doesn't know about such things (e.g. readers of encyclopedias) the original wording made these private groups sound like they were formal scientific bodies when they are no such thing. Davkal 16:42, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

What exactly do you mean by describing these as "private"? --Minderbinder 17:27, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

They are private organisations (same sense as private investigator) for likeminded individuals, as opposed to being set up by governments or academic institutions or as professional representative bodies.Davkal 17:42, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

So any organization that isn't governmental or academic is "private"? I don't generally see the term used that way. Do you have any sources using that descriptor? --Minderbinder 17:47, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

"Private" and "mainstream" aren't mutually exclusive terms. Simões (/_contribs) 18:10, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

To minderbender - have you never heard of private and public sector. No, oh well, too bad.

To Simeos, nobody said they were. "Private" and "organisation" are primarily replacing "body" because that gives the impression of something far more formal and official than is the case. And mainstream is removed precisely because these organisations' views are being contrasted with mainstream science inasmuch as they go well beyond what mainstream science says in labelling things pseudoscience. You can't really have two diverging mainstreams. Davkal 18:15, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Interesting theory, but I'm not seeing that as being the case. Simões (/_contribs) 18:19, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

What, you think you have two mainstreams?Davkal 18:19, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

There's a difference between "private" and "in the private sector" (as well as "privately held company" which can be in the private sector). Just saying "private" is vague and doesn't really say anything. --Minderbinder 18:21, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I also agree that an organization doesn't need to be governmental or academic to represent the mainstream view. --Minderbinder 18:23, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Inasmuch as the SS deviates from mainstream scientific thinking (and that it does is the only point of including it at the top of that section) it does not represent the mainstream. And even where in other areas it may be in agreement with the mainstream it still does not represent it in an official capacity. That is why "body" is highly misleading and that is why "mainstream" is wrong.Davkal 18:29, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

And MB, I think the word you were looking for above is "reflect" rather than represent. That is, which scientific organisations elected Michael Sheremer as their official spokesperson and how do they get rid of him. They don't, because he runs the private company.Davkal 18:32, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

What specifically do you mean when you say it deviates from mainstream scientific thinking? Could you provide an example? --Minderbinder 18:52, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I mean that if they didn't deviate from mainstream scientific consensus then there would be no need for a seperate section for things are only considered pseudoscince by sceptical orgs and not by mainstream scientific bodies.Davkal 19:28, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Then you misunderstand the section. It is for items that mainstream scientific bodies haven't commented on. That doesn't mean that they don't consider it pseudoscience, it just means they haven't gone on the record, particularly since the more "fringe" a topic is, the less a scientific organization or publication is inclined to mention it at all. It's wrong to assume that an international scientific considers a topic scientific just because they haven't made a statement declaring it pseudoscientific. --Minderbinder 19:49, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Martin, "scientific" is an adjective for "skepticism." This distinguishes it from, e.g., philosophical skepticism. Using the former is perfectly accurate. Simões (/_contribs) 21:03, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I know that, but there is significant -and not only fringe group- dispute as to whether some of the organizations meet the scientific criteria. Truzzi, for instance (see CSICOP page). I think that is what Davkal is pointing to, and it really isn't necessary to say "scientific" as "mainstream skeptical bodies" seems to do fine. Especially when we name one or two which people have probably heard of, so they know what the organizations are about. Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 22:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

It's not significant outside of the pseudoskeptical accusations of (the late) Truzzi. As such, it is generally okay to include at the very least the link to the concept. --ScienceApologist 03:29, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a good compromise to me. The link but not the claim. After all, in many cases they are scientific skeptics. Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 04:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

FYI, "scientific" is not a synonym for "skeptic"; quite the opposite, in fact. Skeptics tend to be very non-scientific in the things that they choose not to beleive. Advances in science requires the researcher to be very open to crazy, wild ideas, so as to be able to form a hypothesis. History shows that the most famous and important theories started as the wildest and craziest ideas. Skepticism is required during a differnt phase, it is applied only to the validation of the hypothesis. Science is a balance of these two forces, it is not one or the other. linas 00:08, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Read scientific skepticism. And you might want to be a little more judicious with the sweeping generalizations. --Minderbinder 12:15, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

An important point here hinges on whether those who call themselves sceptics are actually sceptics in the true sense. That is, many times the accusation has been made that so-called sceptical organisations are actually pseudosceptical. And while there is little doubt that the word "sceptic" has evolved suffiently such that it can be correctly applied to groups such as CSI it is far from clear that they actually do promote or believe in scientific/rational scepticism. A similar situation exists in the UK where the term "conservative with a small c" is used to denote those with political views in line with conservative politico-philosophical ideology as opposed to those who suppport the Conservative party which, after intially being named for having that standpoint, have now moved sufficiently far from it that true sense of the word no longer really applies. It is therefore quite appropriate to say Conservatives are not conservative and, I think, equally appropriate to say Sceptics are not sceptical. To muddy this distinction, or to not even acknowledge it, is, I think, disingenuous. Truzzi wrote a lot on this. Maybe we should all read what he had to say. Davkal 12:37, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

many times the accusation has been made that so-called sceptical organisations are actually pseudosceptical. --> While the accusation is made, when it appears it is almost always leveled by the people being criticized. Therefore we have an issue of reliability with respect to such sources. The only (arguable) neutral application of pseudoskepticism as a moniker was Truzzi himself. All subsequent labelers are bandwagoning to hope to remove criticism from their pet ideas. Therefore it is a bald violation of WP:WEIGHT to indicate any sort of controversy with regards to the skeptical status of said organizations. --ScienceApologist 12:55, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

The accusation has been made regularly by some inside CSI (e.g., Truzzi, Rawlins & Kammann) and by other scientists and academics - and not necessarily those involved in any paranormal research. For example:

"It is not surprising that the Committee has been involved in a number of heated controversies. These produced internal schisms and provoked rebukes from outsiders. A few examples will give a flavor of some of the disputes. In examining the scientific status of CSICOP, sociologists Pinch and Collins (1984) described the Committee as a “scientific-vigilante” organization (p. 539). Commenting on an article in SI, medical professor Louis Lasagna (1984) wrote: “One can almost smell the fiery autos-da-fe of Torquemada and the Spanish Inquisition” (p. 12). Engineering professor Leonard Lewin (1979) noted that in SI articles “the rhetoric and appeal to emotion seemed rather out of place” (p. 9). Rockwell, Rockwell, and Rockwell (1978b) called CSICOP members “irrational rationalists” (see also Kurtz, 1978b; Rockwell, Rockwell, & Rockwell, 1978a). Sociologist Hans Sebald (1984) described contributors to SI as “combative propagandists” (p. 122). Adams (1987) compared CSICOP with the Cyclops; Robert Anton Wilson (1986) labeled CSICOP the “New Inquisition,” and White (1979) called them “new disciples of scientism.” McConnell (1987) wrote: “I cannot escape the conviction that those who control CSICOP are primarily bent upon the vilification of parapsychology and parapsychologists” (p. 191). Clearly, CSICOP has its share of detractors."

It is also clear from a cursory glance at CSI's history (i.e., one scientific study of the paranormal in 30 years - and a shambolic one at that), that their primary goal has never been sceptical inquiry. Rather, they are, and always really have been, an advocacy group for scientism. That some cannot see/accept this rather obvious point simply shows the kind of lack of understanding of "scepticism" that Truzzi bemoaned for many years.Davkal 11:28, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Umm, you have basically proved my point. The people criticizing CSI are those who are sympathetic towards the subjects being criticized by CSI. --ScienceApologist 13:09, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Except that it doesn't even support, let alone prove, your point at all. Former CSICOP founders/members Truzzi, Kammann and Rawlins, for example, were all highly skeptical of paranormal claims and in no way could be said to be promoters of, or sympathetic to the paranormal - except inasmuch as they didn't have a pathological hatred of it to the extent they would think it appropriate, for example, to fiddle the results of experiments. Rawlins said as much: "I am still skeptical of the occult beliefs CSICOP was created to debunk. But I have changed my mind about the integrity of some of those who make a career of opposing occultism. I now believe that if a flying saucer landed in the backyard of a leading anti-UFO spokesman, he might hide the incident from the public (for the public's own good, of course). He might swiftly convince himself that the landing was a hoax, a delusion or an "unfortunate" interpretation of mundane phenomena that could be explained away with "further research." Davkal 13:33, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

The Truzzi camp was, what we might call, devil's advocates. They were also philosophical skeptics rather than scientific skeptics prefering to believe that, in a post-modern sense, knowledge was purely a construct. This is in contrast to the fundamental methodological naturalism upon which the scientific method is based. Fundamentally, Truzzi wanted to overhaul human thought, he was skeptical of all people who narrowed their interests by dismissing crackpots. I'm not sure how Truzzi et al. would have treated Gene Ray; from what I understand of his positions entertaining crackpots seemed to be one of his favorite pass-times. Carl Sagan was particularly bemused by Truzzi's unrelenting gluttony for entertaining absurd theses. He writes about it in a few of his books. By the way, Rawlins connection to the UFO-community is undeniable: hardly makes him a reliable source on the status of CSI. --ScienceApologist 14:12, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Also, here is Louis Lasagna who said "One can almost smell the fiery autos-da-fe of Torquemada and the Spanish Inquisition”. Hardly a paranormal promoting unreliable crackpot.Davkal 13:55, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Um, Louis Lasagna is known for promoting holistic medicine. The man is accomplished, but he isn't a particularly neutral source. --ScienceApologist 14:12, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Ah, the old "keyword-search" argument. I think the sense in which "holistic" is used in respect of the "Lasagna Oath" is one which nobody could really take issue with.Davkal 14:46, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

The late Lasagna has been tied to a number of fringe ideas including advocating Vitamin C doses for cancer treatment and other practices of bad medicine. There are instances of respected people being romanced by pseudoscience promotion, you know. --ScienceApologist 16:35, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure you really represent his position, or the use of vitamin C, accurately, but it is of little relevance anyway - we have numerous criticisms of CSICOP from people who were skeptics. For example, Truzzi, Kammann and Rawlins? What have they been promoting?Davkal 18:44, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

See above. --ScienceApologist 20:42, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

And "Rawlins connection to the UFO community"?????Davkal 18:50, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Also, I think from this line "from what I understand of his positions entertaining crackpots seemed to be one of his favorite pass-times", we can see the pseudosceptic approach you take clearly. If one actually bothers to read up on things, be interested in them, and try to critically appraise them then one can simply be labelled unreliable on that basis alone. Far better, you seem to think, to sit in one's armchair safe in the knowledge that such things are impossible. But this is almost the definition of pseudosceptic. And it seems that your failure to appreciate that things cannot be rejected just on the basis of this type of non-investigation shows that you pretty much accept my point but think that your way (the pseudosceptical way) is best. That it breaches all the standards that give science the credibility it deserves unfortunately doesn't appear to register.Davkal 19:00, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Sour grapes. You wish you could be the only editor at Misplaced Pages. You aren't. Deal with it. --ScienceApologist 20:42, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

That's a good argument.Davkal 21:24, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Probably better to classify it as an "observation" and a valid one at that. Shot info 22:14, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Another incisive comment from a member of the little group that is trying to ban everyone who disagrees with them from editing wiki.Davkal 22:29, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Persecution complex much? Shot info 23:31, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Psychiatry a pseudoscience.

Hi,

I realise that it is a pseudoscience but that people are reliant on the current medical treatments. So I'm happy to just put it here rather than on the main page. I can provide evidence. If my religion is in question I am an athiest and I believe in the scientific method. It has all the elements of a pseudoscience. Feel free to prove me wrong. I accept scientific articles and scientific analysis. If there is something wrong with me putting it here such as laws or something then please tell me.

Thanks —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Drugged monkey (talk • contribs) 09:43, 15 April 2007 (UTC).

Your opinion is original research and therefore forbidden by Misplaced Pages. You need to have a reference that states that psychiatry is a pseudoscience before you include it in the text. Moreover, by the ruling of the arbitration committee: Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience, it is not even appropriate to label psychoanalysis a pseudoscience let alone psychiatry. You will have to be content to see your text removed from the article for these reasons. Remember, Misplaced Pages is a mainstream source of information so we report the mainstream consensus on topics. While we can attribute minority ideas (such as your proposal that psychiatry is pseudoscience), such reporting is covered by policies such as WP:N, WP:V, WP:RS, WP:FRINGE, and WP:NPOV. Good luck and happy editting! --ScienceApologist 13:07, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, what type of evidence do you need. There are many scientific articles available. Also when you are referring to things from a scientific point of view you state where is the evidence not where is some appeal to authority.

Any evaluation of psychiatry should take place at the psychiatry article and not here. If you can work it out so that the psychiatry article includes a disclaimer about it possibly being pseudoscience then come on back here and we'll work out a way to list it. However, the place to include evidence is not on a page that simply lists pseudosciences, it's on the subject page itself. By the way, the appeal to authority is exactly what Misplaced Pages demands in its WP:RS, WP:V, and WP:ATT policies. It isn't my rule: it's the community's consensus. --ScienceApologist 14:16, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, It will take time to write an article. But I shall do that and also provide original research proving psychiatry is a psuedoscience. Then I'll be happy to submit it for arbitration. Is there somewhere on wikipedia that I can publish my findings? Thanks.

No, you cannot publish original research on Misplaced Pages. Read the linked page. There are plenty of other places on the web where you can publish (e.g. a blog of a private webpage or even starting your own wiki). --ScienceApologist 10:29, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Sources for this article

The second section of this article says "Unless otherwise noted, the entries are referenced from...". I don't think this is appropriate because, given the nature of wiki, articles change and grow with the work of many editors. If items on lists are not sourced individually then it is impossible to tell whether the source actually supports the claim or is merely an item that has no source. This is particularly problematic here given the poor quality of the sourcing when sources are actually given. For example, the statement from the Russian academy of science doesn't really support the claims it is cited for. Davkal 22:27, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

You have a history of repeatedly tag-bombing the same section of this article, over and over. First you claim it's OR. Then you claim it's POV. Next you claim it's not properly sourced. What's clear is that you have as a goal to disrupt this article by any means possible. -- LuckyLouie 23:05, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

This is simply requesting proper attribution for some claims. If you don't have sources then don't put things into the article. The first fact tag is for OR because it looks like speculative OR to me - the claim that the reason scientific bodies have not done something is because.... And the second fact tag is there because the source provided: a) doesn't specify a difference between paranormal and pseudoscience and therefore we can't really tell whether it's saying "X is a pseudoscience" or "X is paranormal"; and b) it doesn't even mention X in the first place. If you have proper sources for these claims then let them be cited. Simply accusing me of disruption does not equate to proper sources, nor does it negate the need for such sources.

And in response to your point, the section from the intro is OR, it is POV and it's not (probably can't be) properly sourced.Davkal 23:14, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

The issue of proper attribution and missing sources is not a joke and will not disappear by simply removing the tags. This is one of the most basic Wiki rules. It is not not up for discussion.Davkal 01:00, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry people are complaining of fact tag bombing. I would not necessarily tag all the things which have been tagged. However, we must follow the rules of WP:CITE. It says:

Attribution is required by Misplaced Pages:Verifiability for direct quotes and for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged. Any material that is challenged and for which no source is provided may be removed by any editor.

It doesn't say:

Attribution is required by Misplaced Pages:Verifiability for direct quotes and for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged. Any material that is challenged and for which no source is provided may be removed by any editor, unless some people don't agree with that editor, or don't like that editor.

I think that most or all of the things challenged do truly qualify as OR, or as needing citation. I am very disturbed by the willingness of some editors to delete citation requests they don't like. I think it is against the rules: citation requests should be filled, or the article restructured in order to make the citation request unnecessary. Believe me, I've filled dozens or more of citation requests I deemed frivolous. Citation requests should never simply be deleted.

Note that tag bombing is a stub essay, not even a guideline. Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 01:08, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Not to overly quibble, but WP:CITE is actually a guideline rather than policy. Shot info 01:26, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I note you (Shot info) removed the fact tag from paranormal research. Citing sources doesn't simply mean having a source after a claim - it also requires the source to support the claim. In this case it doesn't. Davkal 01:41, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Paranormal research

Sorry I took out the header there. Didn't look closely enough. You know, not all things paranormal are pseudoscientific. Paranormal just means that it is beyond what is known to be physically possible at the moment. So if someone, for instance, were to have been trying to focus to a resolution shorter than the wavelength of the light, and the way to do so had not been discovered, then that would be paranormal. But they have discovered such a possibility (I think I have the details right, but you get the point even if I don't). So, not all paranormal is pseudoscientific. Need to find another word to use for a header. There are other things which are acknowledged to happen, which don't seem to have a normal explanation. The article says: "Approaching paranormal phenomena from a research perspective is often difficult because even when the phenomena are seen as real they may be difficult to explain using existing rules or theory." Why do we need these things under a heading? Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 00:21, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually your example is not particularly pertinent, as the physics behind light et.al are well known, so even if it where physically impossible, it is theoretically possible, if the technology "caught up". Paranormal subjects don't have a theoretical basis, so rather than being physically impossible, they are theoretically impossible. Hence not only beyond "normal" but beyond science as well. Since scientific research doesn't really examine topics "beyond science" the argument for pseudo-science is still valid. It also needs to be noted that my comment is really only a paraphrase(s) of what has been articulated here several times in the recent past. Shot info 01:31, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I believed I chose an example of what people though was theoretically impossible at one time. Even if I didn't, the point is that research into the paranormal is not pseudoscience per se. So it doesn't belong as a heading here. Or does it? In the previous article, you could have a legitimate heading "medicine" or whatever, and then the subjects beneath it. Is this article the same? Are Dietary supplements supposed to all be pseudoscience, or is this just a subject heading? No, it seems that the article does not have legitimate headings with pseudoscientific sub-headings, so the paranormal heading doesn't belong.

Fields identified as not pseudoscience

I think the way the article is written currently is disingenuous. For example, re the first list, it says that the pseudoscientific status is indicated by a statement from one or more scientific bodies. This is disingenuous because while it may be the case that one scientific body says x is pseudoscience another scientific body may have said that it is not. (This would be the case with parapsychology if you could find a source that says it is pseudoscience - ignoring for the moment the fact that no such source has been found). The point, then, is that we should, I think, mark those topics where we have a difference of opinion from different scientific bodies. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Davkal (talk • contribs) 01:38, 16 April 2007 (UTC).

], probably not an RS though. www.scientificexploration.org/jse/articles/pdf/17.2_mousseau.pdf is an excellent article mainly as displays the mental gymnastics that are needed to justify the dumbing down of items that others have used to describe "science" to state "see Parapsychology matches our (re)classification of science QED it is a science"). ] RS? "Many scientists have viewed parapsychology with great suspicion because the term has come to be associated with a huge variety of mysterious phenomena, fringe topics, and pseudoscience." from the PA itself ]. But this is just a wander thru google. Shot info 01:48, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

The Atheism source is not RS. Wiseman is, since he is a skeptical parapsychologist- I don't know if he would describe himself as a parapsychologist, but even if he doesn't and even if he calls parapsychology pseudoscience, he's contradicted by others of equal or greater stature. And the Mousseau article is well within the philosophical disputes reguarding what exactly science is and what it is not. No hoops there. Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 02:25, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree, but we are going round and around again. Incidently, Mousseau's discussion basically involves redefining "science" and then saying parapsychology equates to this redefined "science", which of course I'm glad we are all in agreeance with :-) Shot info 02:55, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

If my memory serves, Mousseau just chooses her definition from among the pre-existing conventional arguments avaliable. I wouldn't give her article any time if it made up its own definition of science. Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 04:06, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Levitation

Martinphi, I see you fact-tagged Levitation. The citation for that is from the Iowa Academy of Science, which says:

Pseudoscience is a catch-all term for nay (sic) mistaken or unsupported beliefs that are cloaked in the disguise of scientific credibility. Examples include assertions of scientific creationism, the control of actions at a distance through mediation, and the belief in levitation, astrology or UFO visitors.

Your comment in the edit summary where you added the fact-tag was "It is really beyond my ability to express how inadiquate the give source is. See talk page". Would you mind elaborating on why you believe the existing source does not suffice? thanks, Jim Butler 02:53, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, I'm guessing you really meant to fact-tag Paranormal research, which cites the brief statement from the Russian Academy of Sciences. --Jim Butler 02:56, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you're right! Sorry, I tagged the wrong thing.

OK, I'll try and elaborate some more, but below to keep it together. Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 03:07, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Paranormal research

This citation request I just put in the article is for a source which says that all research on the paranormal, as "paranormal" is defined in the Paranormal article, is pseudoscience. The current source is really less adequate than if you cited skepdic.com. The source should specifically say that it is talking about _all_ paranormal research, and it should define exactly what paranormal research includes. It was a step ahead to take these things out from under the heading of parapsychology, but we still need to work on it.

I suggest that there should be no general heading for these things- or, that the headings be legitimate, and the sub-headings be pseudoscience. For instance, have a heading of "geology" and put quake prediction under it. Then the headings wouldn't have to be pseudoscientific themselves, and all this problem would be solved. Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 02:40, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I tagged the wrong thing the first time. OK, why is the source not good enough? Because (see also above), "paranormal research" is investigation which doesn't seem to be possible under current understanding of natural laws. Investigation of gravity and dark energy and other things are paranormal investigations, technically. The source is only complaining about certain things, not paranormal research overall. It doesn't give its definitions. It is really just a complaint against bunk in general. But it doesn't say "this is what we mean by paranormal, and anyone who researches such a thing is doing pseudoscience."

Look at the article Paranormal phenomena, which basically says paranormal phenomena are anomalous phenomenon, "which deviates from what is expected according to existing rules or scientific theory. Sometimes the anomalous phenomenon is expected, but the reason for the deviation is unclear (See section on anomalies in science)."

In a nutshell, it isn't pseudoscience to study strange stuff.

I can't think of a general heading which would be suitable here. So I suggest that we give up general headings, and just list things. Or else, make it very clear that the headings themselves are not necessarily considered pseudoscience. For instance, put "Earthquake prediction" under "Geology."

However, we could also use "General paranormal topics" or some such as a heading. Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 03:24, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I moved the other bit out of the way. Hope nobody minds. Martin you are labouring under a misdefinition of science. Gravity (for example) kind of works all the time. Paranormal subjects, don't work all the time, aren't not definable (in a sense that acceleration due to gravity is ]. Likewise with dark energy which explains an observable event. This event happens all the time, and is measurable, deterministic etc. etc. All these lovely "hard" things that science likes. Now it may (probably) be replaced by something else in the future, but that in itself will be the explanation for the same observable event. It is not allegorous to say these unexplainable scientific events equate to paranormal subjects.

I like your compromise (: Well, you may be right that no paranormal topic is definable, since it might not even exist. Then again, it is easy to define the limits of a paranormal event. Take a very physical one, say spoon bending. The spoon bends. Same as dark matter: the galaxy swirls faster than it should. But we don't know what causes it in either case. See, the thing is that some events are observable, and smack of superstition or telepathy or something, and some things are observable and smack of, say, a new kind of energy. Some things are just barely observable, or even totally untestable like string theory, but are widely accepted because they don't have any horrible nasty implications for who we are. It really has to get bad before you hear about it, as in the case of string theory. They bleat about how beautiful it is, except, just a small flaw, it would need an accelerator the size of the solar system to test it (I think that's right anyway). Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 04:04, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Martin, your critique is pure OR. No one uses "paranormal" the way you are here except (perhaps) other people trying to give credence to paranormal research. The source is fine, and there will be no compromise. Simões (/_contribs) 04:10, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh my, I can't believe you said that. You are on Misplaced Pages not to compromise? You do not rule here, Simoes. Don't try. And read the paranormal article for the definition. I'm asking you for a source that defines all research into the paranormal as pseudoscience. Find one.

Is this an admission about your real Misplaced Pages orientation? "I have a lot of buddies behind me so I can put anything I want in the article, And if you don't like it I'll RfC the hell out of you?" I think "no compromise" is an extremely revealing comment. In fact, I think ArbCom will really like it when you take my RfC to them.

But wow. No compromise. Wow. Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 04:19, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

To all, I'm not compromising on the science, but in the sense of a WP list, yes I am. I don't mind the wording being removed and generally tidied up. To Martin, I believe the "compromise" suggested in not in the sense of coming to consensus but rather redefining definitions (both WP and scientific). So don't get your knickers in a knot about that. BTW the spoon doesn't bend, it is bent, prior to the exercise. In this case it is known how the spoon is bent and what physics are involved. The suggestions otherwise are seeking paranormal explanations for a normal event to justify a lack of paranormal ability. Unfortunately for paranormal subjects, dark matter and dark energy have pages upon pages of complex mathematics which actually predicted it, but nobody said they existed until the observations started to be seen as technology improved. Much like your microscope example. The physics say that you can see smaller then the wavelength of visible light, and now we can. Paranormal subjects are paranormal because they aren't truly observable (in a scientific sense) nor are they supported by theoretical principles (ie/ no equations to suggest that certain "things" are passable between thinking individuals etc. etc.). At the moment all we have are unsupportable theories which all internally clash with one another and tend to have a basis in magical or religious (or wishful) thinking. Nevertheless, I am a full supporter of the research of such things and WP should reflect this :-) Shot info 04:38, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

You support paranormal research? I don't really understand why you'd support research into something you already know for sure doesn't exist. If you already know that, which paranormal research would you not support? Would you support research into the hollowness of the earth?

I don't know of "unsupportable theories which all internally clash with one another" because I don't know of any theories. There is a lot of hocus-pocus stuff comming from laymen, like people who call themselves psychics.

Fine about spoon bending, and I don't want to make you mad, but that's pure OR. Maybe you're right. Still, the problem with debunking some paranormal phenomena is not how many people you have to call deluded, but how many people you have to call liars. It's just too many, in my opinion. And there are lots of cases where lots of people would have to be plain liars. And never recant for a lifetime. This assumes a pernicious stability of personality which I don't believe is supported by other research. To explain paranormal phenomena, we need a new theory of psychology or a new theory of physics. People who experience, say, bending a spoon, do not seem to be different from people who don't. Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 04:50, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Martin, we have had a discussion elsewhere about my personal predilection for research to be pursued for research's sake, even into paranormal subjects. Obviously it is up to individuals and their employers to which, what and how their time and monies are spent. BTW, there are a lot of people who say their religion is right and real and the only one. This tends to sentence a lot more people than those who believe in the paranormal into the "liar" category. And last time I looked, it is normal human nature to see patterns in inexplicable events and to seek "rational" (in the sense of internally self evident) explanations (ie/ religion, aliens, Atlantis...whatever). Most of these beliefs are so self evident to themselves that when presented with the relatively mundane counterproof, they cannot accept this and spend the rest of their lives wondering why the poor soul believes in all those little funny squiggles and "-ologies" :-) Shot info 06:34, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Hang on Martin. I see what you have been doing here is straight from your "Paranormal Primer": if X is criticized, change X to "all X", then place a fact tag on the new definition, then rewrite the sentence to be more favorable to X. That's called POV pushing. -- LuckyLouie 04:33, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Huh?? That was an unfinished essay that was just my first draft of my thinking. It was probably very incorrect. I never expected to have someone come along and take it as the word of God, or to read that and not any other policies on Misplaced Pages. I warned everyone it was unfinished. It had a template saying it wasn't policy. Geez, I have no idea what you're talking about. But it sounds like whatever it was maybe it was totally wrong.

Oh, I know maybe what you mean. You mean Tom Butler's essay, where he is describing what the pseudoskeptics actually do? BTW, I never discussed strategy in the Paranormal primer.

Alright, I just consulted the copy I have. That first draft should merely have read, "ask yourself for a citation." I did use that strategy one, and only one, time that I know of, and that was a violation of POINT- a mistake, to make it perfectly clear. But what I was thinking when I wrote that was that one should ask one's self for a citation. Seriously, taking a first draft written so long ago as representative of my thinking! I don't even remember most of what is in there.

And I am not planning that here. Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 05:01, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with Martinhphi here that the Russian Academy of Sciences statement is not at all clear, and likely inadequate for our purposes here. They list "astrology, shamanisn, occultism, etc." as examples of "pseudoscience and paranormal dogmas". As a statement from a cross-disciplinary scientific body condemning pseudoscience, it's great. As a source for saying that any particular topic is pseudoscience, it's pretty vague. --Jim Butler 04:40, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Parapsychology revisited

Parapsychology having a "broad consensus concerning their pseudoscientific status" definitely needs a source beyond what is listed for general paranormal topics. It doesn't belong where it currently is. Right now it is listed as a paranormal subject. Parapsychology isn't a paranormal subject. It's a methodology applied to paranormal subjects. I have no doubt that someone out there thinks parapsychology (the methodology) is pseudoscience, but I seriously doubt that it has a broad consensus within the "Academies of Science". It certainly isn't sourced as such. The source talks about paranormal subjects, not what is considered (at least by some) to be a scientific approach to studying paranormal subjects.

Either it needs a rock solid source to make that claim that "Academies of Science" think it is pseudoscience, or it needs to be moved to a different section and sourced to who actually says it's a pseudoscience. I have no problem with a list saying such and such says this and that is pseudoscience, but it is a negative claim. Here it doesn't say at all who is making that negative claim. Readers need to know who it is so they can decide for themselves whether it's true. --Nealparr 05:10, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Suggested solution: we dispense with the Russian AoS source since it's so vague, and if these topics are mentioned by Skeptic Encyclopedia or something similar, just move them to the second section. --Jim Butler 05:51, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't particularly have a problem with the Russian AoS source being applied to general paranormal subjects (personally). I don't think it has carte blanche on all paranormal research though. I'm sure most reasonable people can see a difference between so-called psychics hanging out at a haunted house trying to pick up on vibes (not parapsychology) and people applying statistical analysis (parapsychology). Both are considered paranormal research, but they differ greatly in approaches. If there's going to be a claim that there's a broad consensus in the academies of science against parapsychology, the source needs to specifically say parapsychology rather than just paranormal research. Either that or it needs to clearly say that any research at all on a paranormal subject would be considered pseudoscience (because that would include parapsychology). In both cases, the source needs to be clear as to who is saying what and what they are talking about.

The other problem with the Russian AoS source (besides ambiguity) is that 30 or so Russian scientists don't equate to a broad consensus. Considering that there are about 500 members of the Russian AoS, 30 doesn't even equate to a broad consensus within the academy : ) If there's a broad consensus, I'm sure you could find hundreds of thousands of scientists with multiple national backgrounds.

Moving it to another section is fine, but it still needs a clear source saying who is making that claim. Readers need to know who is making the negative claim so they can decide for themselves whether or not to agree or disagree with them. That's why this POV article stands as NPOV. Misplaced Pages isn't calling these things pseudoscience. The people sourced are. Parapsychology needs a clear source from someone that can be evaluated independently from Misplaced Pages.

--Nealparr 06:29, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

So would sourcig it to a particular person or people be OK, if it were in the second section like Jim Butler says? That way it could have a source which would be good for that section. Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 06:42, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

The second section does require an official statement from a group, just a sci-skept group as opposed to a body of scientists. --Jim Butler 17:30, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

It can be put anywhere as long as the source accurately backs up why it is there. If there's a source that reflects "broad consensus concerning their pseudoscientific status" it can stay exactly where it is. There isn't now, and I seriously doubt there is a source that reflects a broad consensus, but if there is, there is. If not, it does need to be moved or removed. If moved, it needs a source justifying it's placement in the section it is moved to. If it's moved to the CSI section, for example, it needs a source saying CSI said that. If a whole new section is made for it, that's fine. It still needs a source where a notable is making the claim. Under no circumstances can the burden of the claim be left to Misplaced Pages, however. That would be a non-neutral, unattributed, and possibly false point of view (the false part is because it's possibly just a fringe science -- as I pointed out before it can't be both fringe and pseudo simultaneously).

--Nealparr 07:07, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Personally (as previously discussed for many hours in Parapsychology and the Pseudoscience cat), I personally don't believe that Parapsychology in the sense of that discipline that studies various pseudoscienctific subjects, is necessarily a pseudoscience. However originally on this list, it was a linkfarm to areas of interest. It has evolved since then and now the Parapsychology as defined by parapsychologists is in itself not a pseudoscience. However mainstream scientific organisations don't really concern themselves with defining pseudoscience. There are plenty of examples of skeptics and others labeling parapsychological subjects (and even Parapsychology the discipline) as pseudoscience. However outside of parapsychologists (and paranormal supporters) Parapsychology isn't really labeled as a science either. For that matter most academies and bodies don't label subjects really as science either. So finding the "killer quote" is nigh impossible. However as I pointed out earlier, even the PA in their own FAQ believe that they have an image problem ("Many scientists have viewed parapsychology with great suspicion..."). BTW, CSICOP tend to use the expression "fringe science, pseudoscience and paranormal" as a catchall. Shot info 07:13, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

A minor point, outside of the AAAS, the word "parapsychology" isn't very popular (or returns zero results) when reviewing academies and learned societies websites (for example, Royal Society). Shot info 07:18, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I absolutely agree with that. The sources that consider parapsychology a pseudoscience tend to not even use that name, instead just calling it paranormal research or something similar. --Minderbinder 12:51, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. I think you could find plenty of killer quotes to keep it in the second section. I'd start with the refs on the skepdic entry. Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 07:21, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages has guidelines for dealing with a lack of solid sourcing for negative claims. When in doubt, leave it out. If there isn't a solid source for broad consensus, take it out of the main section. Really, if you look over the list in the main section, parapsychology is the only item where there's at least a little consensus on it not being pseudoscience. Doesn't it seem strange to leave it there?

--Nealparr 07:40, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I may be wrong. I can't find a match on CSI site. Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 07:52, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I didn't want to take the sub-categories which used to be under paranormal and put them in the second section. But someone needs to. That or find a general heading that will work for them. Parapsychology doesn't encompass all of them, and study of the paranormal (the previous heading) isn't always pseudoscience. Right Nealparr? Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 08:15, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm only talking about "parapsychology" itself. A parapsychologist might take offense to Misplaced Pages invalidating their work unsourced. I doubt an EVP would take similar offense : )

--Nealparr 08:27, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

The NSF source is a great source for covering paranormal beliefs as pseudoscience, but it doesn't do as good of a job talking about paranormal research, academic or otherwise, and doesn't address parapsychology at all.

Minderbinder said: "The sources that consider parapsychology a pseudoscience tend to not even use that name, instead just calling it paranormal research or something similar."

We can take a look at those. They don't have to say parapsychology by name if they show "broad consensus" and clearly state that any research whatsoever on the paranormal would be pseudoscience, because that would include parapsychology. They'd have to draw that distinction, though, to be a solid source. Even applying science to debunk claims of the paranormal is paranormal research. There has to be a clear distinction. I'm pretty sure debunkers would take offense to being called pseudoscientists. --Nealparr 19:11, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

paranormal subjects

The first section supposedly only includes those items where a scientific consensus exists - indicated by at least one mainstream scientific body identifying something as a pseudoscience. We now have the heading "paranormal subjects" with no source at all (mainstream scientific body or otherwise), followed by a list of topics which, in the rare cases where there actually are sources, are sourced only to the those skeptical groups whose views are supposed to be dealt with in the second section.Davkal 11:28, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I note that two sources have now been added for this heading - the Astronomical Society of the pacific and the Russian academy of sciences. The RAS source is so unclear that I don't think it supports the claim at all - for example, it mentions both pseudoscience and the paranormal but it is far from clear whether the authors regard these two terms as synonymous or not. It also "defines" these terms (one of them, both of them, who knows?) by reference to only a few specific things (astrology, shamanism, occultism) and so it not clear that it is a good source for a non-defined catch-all heading which subsequently includes none of the things specifically mentioned in the source and many things that are not. Similarly, The ASP are an astronomical society dealing with astronomical pseudoscience. The table of contents from that source makes no mention of any of things on the list following the header for which the ASP is a source. It is hard to resist the conclusion that this 6-degrees-of-separation sourcing system is little more than some clumsy sleight-of-hand designed to include things as pseudoscience for which you have no direct (nor even really an indirect) source. The general point being that if academies of science have explicitly stated that EVP, or Dowsing, or Parapsychology or Seances are pseudoscience then let us have these sources and be done with it. If they have not explicitly said that these things are pseudoscience then get them off the list.Davkal 12:04, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I note that a third source has now been added to the heading "paranormal subjects" - the Iowa academy of sciences. Extraordinarily (or not so), that source doesn't include the word "paranormal" and the topics explicitly referred to in it are UFOs, creationism, astrology, levitation and something to do with meditation - none of which fall under the heading for which it is a source. We now have the ludicrous position where three sources are cited for a heading and subsequent list, which between them do not mention once any of the items on that list nor even the catch-all heading they are cited in direct support of.Davkal 13:16, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

The word is "mediation," and it is referring to, at the very least, psychokinesis. Also, levitation (of the paranormal sort) is considered to be under the auspices of parapsychology. Simões (/_contribs) 15:30, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, so I made a typo, but it doesn't change the fact that nothing in the heading or in the list is explicitly mentioned in any of the sources. This interpretation of "control of actions at a distance using mediation" as meaning psychokinesis, even if true, is of no consequence because PK is not in the list anyway. Neither is levitation. I don't see why it should be so difficult to stick to what we have sources explicitly saying rather than engaging in fanciful connection making like that illustrated below.Davkal 15:57, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Levitation was there, and I just rectified the omission of psychokinesis. Thank you for pointing that out. Simões (/_contribs) 16:11, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Levitation wasn't in the list and you don't really have a source for PK yet - the Iowa source may be about PK but it may be about something else. The use of "mediation" suggests that it might refer to some of the effects attributed to mediums in, for example, seances - effects not normally called PK. But in any event it is far from clear what the Iowa source means. Does it really not concern you at all that you are now just making up any old thing and attributing them to sources that barely offer any support for them. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia.Davkal 16:35, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Levitation was on the list. Also, I reject a premise of your question, so I'll be unable to answer it. Simões (/_contribs) 16:42, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Levitation wasn't on the list of "paranormal subjects" that was being discussed above. Re your not answering the question. Perhaps you might take a minute to consider the way you are editing the article in line with your POV and with a total disregard for what the sources actually say. You don't even have a source for paranormal yet. And yes you can stretch the definitions/sources beyond breaking point and insert anything you like and you will probably even get backing from a number of other editors. But the question really is, should you do these things?Davkal 16:47, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I do agree that levitation wasn't under the paranormal header. It is now. Also, I've taken your thoughts into consideration and reject those as well; I therefore still reject a premise of your question. Simões (/_contribs) 16:52, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Where is the source that says "paranormal subjects" are considered pseudoscience - none of the three sources offered support this claim? Where are the mainstream scientific sources saying any of the items on the list of "paranormal subjects" (except levitation) are pseudoscience? If apprrpriate sources are not cited that section will b removed.Davkal 17:00, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

The National Center for Science Education doesn't have the word "para." The Iowa Academy of Sciences one doesn't have the words "paranormal" or "parapsychology." The NSF source is the best, but does not say that all things paranormal are pseudoscience. No one is disputing that some paranormal things are pseudoscience.

However, the sources are being used to act as if the sub-headings don't need their own sources. That won't work. If there is not an extremely excellent source which says specifically "this is what paranormal means, and all things paranormal are pseudoscience," then items under the heading need individual sources. Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 18:03, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I suggest that we merely source the individual items or move them to the lower part of the list. There shouldn't be any problem keeping them on the list. Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 18:03, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Evolution as pseudoscience

I note that the Iowa academy of sciences lists UFO visitors as a pseudoscience. Stanton Friedman is a Ufologist; Dean Friedman has the same surname as Stanton Friedman; The band Half Man Half Biscuit wrote a song called The Bastard Son of Dean Friedman; they also wrote a song called All I want for Christmas is the Dukla Prague Away Kit; Prague is in Europe: Europe begins with an "E"; evolution begins with an "E"; I rest my case. Davkal 13:28, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

NSF reference

That's an interesting reference, Minderbender. I think it even strengthens the main item enough for it to be renamed back to "Paranormal research." Any objections? Simões (/_contribs) 17:17, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I believe that the endorsements of the US National Science Board contained in its survey findings which characterize a broad range of paranormal subjects and beliefs as pseudoscience meets this article's requirements for 1st tier attribution. -- LuckyLouie 17:58, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

That source does carry some weight, but two caveats:

• The Indicators 2002 report cites a couple of notable sources but doesn't amount to an official endorsement of their views regarding which topics are PS. The Indicators 2000 discusses "Belief in the Paranormal or Pseudoscience", and addresses both of those topics, but doesn't equate them (perhaps this is to the extent that paranormal topics, however bogus, aren't portrayed as being scientific). It does give as examples of pseudoscience "astrology, ESP, alien abductions" and "unproven health-related therapies".
• (2) It makes me a little nervous, at least in theory, that the 24-member board is appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. That's not prima facie evidence of bias, but it may not be the greatest precedent to rely on political appointees to say what science is.

No strong objections here, but the more independent and explicit the sources are, the stronger the article is. --Jim Butler 18:21, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

This is a great source. I do recommend that instead of "paranormal research", it be changed to "paranormal belief", which is what the NSF article deals with. It makes the claim that paranormal beliefs are pseudoscience because they aren't based on science. It doesn't actually spend much time talking about paranormal research and definitely doesn't cover parapsychology at all.

--Nealparr 18:57, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

One problem here is that many of the sources say, quite rightly, that for X to be pseudoscience X has to in some way mimic science - to be non-science disguised as science. However, as soon as they start to give examples it is clear that many of things do no such thing. It seems clear, then, that there are several different senses of pseudoscience at play in most of the sources. One with the strict definition above and another which is simply a pejorative for things people belief that scientists/sceptics think unlikely or impossible or that they just don't like. The article on pseudoscience makes this distinction but I think that if we are going to have a list of pseudosciences we must be clear what we mean.

A second problem is that the article itself is structured in a way that makes NPOV almost impossible. That is, NPOV says that all significant viewpoints should be presented, but by determining the content of the article by reference to one viewpoint only (positive identification as pseudoscience) and demanding only one source, the article effectively blocks competing views even if those views were in the majority. For example, if one inconsequential scientific body said X is pseudoscience then even if we found 750 other sources that disagreed we could still include X in the article as if it was a consensus view and we would, at present, be unable to even acknowledge the existence of the other views. This seems to me highly undesirable, particularly in light of the problem of the pejorative sense of pseudoscience being used so widely in many of the sources.Davkal 20:04, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Arguing about hypotheticals is somewhat irrelevant to the article at hand. It is fairly clear that pseudoscience is demarcated by mainstream sources rather than fringe sources, and per WP:FRINGE, WP:WEIGHT, WP:SCIENCE, etc. we do a good job of following the mandates of Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience with regards to labeling and categorizing pseudoscience. --ScienceApologist 20:58, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Right, there is no controversy or grey area at all. If Michael Shermer's Skeptic Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience says Multiple Personality Disorder is pseudoscientific, then it is, regardless of the agreement of scientists who compiled the ICD-10 and DSM-IV. Heeding their classification over Shermer's would be a gross violation of undue weight. --Jim Butler 21:24, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

It's pretty clear that there is considerable disdain within the medical community for the multiple personalities disorder diagnosis. Sure there are scientists who support pseudoscience, but that doesn't mean that they represent the consensus. --ScienceApologist 21:41, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Controversy isn't the same as consensus, of course. If there were scientific consensus that MPD were pseudoscientific, it wouldn't be in the ICD-10 or DSM-IV. I'm sure you're not arguing that those sources are less reliable than Shermer (who, FWIW, self-identified as a global warming "skeptic" long after scientific consensus on that topic existed), since that would be an absurd position for any scientifically literate person to take. I'm fine with the article's present form, and the tiering system, but am just sounding a cautionary note about overreaching. thx, Jim Butler 00:47, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd just like to point out that the Encyclopedia doesn't label the disorder-as-such as pseudoscientific. As the entry says, the critique targets a particular explanation of it that is popular among psychotherapists. This is an example of the qualifier given in the section lead; namely, "ome of these items are not considered pseudoscientific in and of themselves: only certain aspects, explanations, and/or applications of them. See an item's description text for more information on this." Simões (/_contribs) 23:59, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm a little new to this article, but I'm wondering how some of these things actually made the list. What is the exact criteria for inclusion here?

Tut's curse? Was that ever actually misrepresented as scientific? How about elves and fairies? Elf and fairy photographs definitely, but elves and fairies themselves? Neoshamanism? Isn't that a religious belief? These are just a few off the top of my head. I think there should at least be a base-line criteria that something has to notably be misrepresented as science to be included on a list of pseudosciences at Misplaced Pages. If we're going to list every single mythological, religious, or simply unscientific belief as being pseudoscience, we're going to need some more servers. Sure, those beliefs aren't scientific. The point is that they aren't often claimed to be scientific. How about just sticking to the things that are often misrepresented as being a scientific belief. The scientific basis for gnomes, fairies, and dragons isn't all that notable.

--Nealparr 21:37, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Nealparr, the lead section and subheader intros give those criteria. regards, Jim Butler 00:47, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I think, in principle, we should stick to attributable claims. --ScienceApologist 21:41, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I would append that to notable attributable claims myself.

--Nealparr 21:46, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. --ScienceApologist 21:54, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Pseudoscience as conflicting with science

Here is a proposal that may resolve the matter. For a topic to be listed here, it should fulfill two criteria:

1. The proponents of the idea should have made statements that directly contradict the theories or observations of natural science.
2. There has been criticism of the idea as pseudoscience.

What we should strive to explicate are both points. So, for example, if we were to include the psuedoscientific aspects of ghosts, we would include information regarding claims of apparitions emitting electromagnetic radiation and light or material-less beings engaging in momentum transfer, as well as the resources which indicate its pseudoscientific character. In other words, we should have both the claims that are relevant to science and the attribution of the labels available.

What do people think?

--ScienceApologist 21:59, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I highly support this as described. It's much more Misplaced Pages-like than what is currently in place. Dropping Tut's curse in without a sourced explanation of why it's pseudoscience doesn't make a great article.

--Nealparr 22:08, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I think such stuff as Tut's Curse was likely transplanted verbatim as an effort to be faithful to the cited source (The Skeptic Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience), however, I agree that entry in particular doesn't serve the article well. Regarding SA's proposal, I would hope such criteria would not invite endless wikilawyering debating who is a "proponent" and which "criticism" represents the mainstream, etc. -- LuckyLouie 22:14, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I think it'd be easier than that if attributed well. An example (totally made up) entry might be:

The Committee for Skeptical Inquiry has said that using EMF detectors to look for evidence of purported ghosts is pseudoscience because... (insert their reasoning) (source)

Totally factual neutral statement. Readers can agree or disagree with CSI's reasoning, and can click to the CSI article to decide for themselves whether CSI represents mainstream views. Leave it all to the reader to determine through attribution and sourcing. Doing it this way actually relieves the burden of overly solid sourcing because Misplaced Pages isn't saying all of science says this. They're saying CSI says this. Readers decide if CSI represents mainstream science or not. It's a lot different than saying all of science says this because 30 Russian scientists say it.

I think it's a lot easier, neutral, less inflamatory, and more Misplaced Pages-like doing it this way.

--Nealparr 22:37, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

To show that I am unbiased about what should be listed and attributed, I offer this example of how parapsychology should be included in the new revision:

In the January-February 1999 issue of Skeptical Inquirer, thirty-two members of the Russian Academy of Sciences stated that parapsychologists "assert untested claims based on pseudoscience."

Source:

That's a proper Misplaced Pages-like entry in my opinion. The difference is that it is well attributed, clear as to what's said and who said it, and doesn't make any unsupported claims as to it being a widespread opinion or majority opinion. It can be supplemented by other similar references if they can be found. In other words, if CSI has a similar opinion about parapsychology, cool, add another sentence and source that too.

--Nealparr 23:18, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

That's preferable for a standard article, but this is a list, not prose. The section leads as they are now give adequate information on inclusion criteria. Also, ScienceApologist's proposal is effectively identical to the current one (sans division of source types based on reliability). Simões (/_contribs) 23:26, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

If we take that approach then we need to question the appropriateness of items on the list in relation to their headers, and based on their sourcing. Many of the items on the list aren't sourced and (in my opinion) aren't appropriate to the header. Parapsychology isn't sourced and isn't appropriate to the header "broad consensus". Tut's curse doesn't make any sense beyond LuckyLouie's suggestion that it was copied over verbatim. Fearing reverts, what is an appropriate way to fix these things?

--Nealparr 23:38, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Subitems are supported by the main item's references, making every entry sourced. As for Tut's curse, I didn't copy it over verbatim, but it is indeed an entry in the Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience. The article treats it as a pseudoscientific concept primarily of historical interest rather than something held by pseudoscientists today, discussing the "evidence" for the curse that was spread by 1920s-era mass media. But regardless of whether anyone thinks an entry is appropriate or not, the standard for content inclusion on any Misplaced Pages article is attribution, not truth. Simões (/_contribs) 23:52, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll give you that one. I don't have the Encyclopedia myself, so I can't flush those entries out to make more sense. There's still the question of parapsychology. A lot of editors have commented here without commenting on that one. If we're going to go with subitems sourced through main item's reference, parapsychology isn't in the ASotP source, the RAoSciences source, the IAoScience source, nor the NSF source. Each of these sources talk about belief in the paranormal (again why I suggest it be renamed to "paranormal belief") and not parapsychology, which is a study of. Again, fearing reverts, how do I fix that?

--Nealparr 00:05, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Parapsychology is a subitem under "Paranormal subjects." And as Martinphi has repeatedly pointed out, there is a consensus in the parapsychology community that some paranormal phenomena (of the psi type) are real. Critiques of the scientific status of parapsychology most often tend to focus on this; i.e., they actually think their experiments are procedurally-sound and that many yield statistically significant positive results.

More importantly, though, the sources mention these beliefs as pseudoscientific, not merely false. To illustrate, note that the IAS statement names metaphysical levitation and psychokinesis as examples of pseudoscience, which they define as " mistaken or unsupported belief that are cloaked in the disguise of scientific credibility" (emphasis added). Thus, parapsychology is a natural subitem under the Paranormal entry. Simões (/_contribs) 00:38, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Without proper sourcing it doesn't really matter what Martinphi thinks (sorry Martin). To meet the section's lead requirements, a "mainstream, specialized scientific bodies" or an "Academies of Science" must have a "broad consensus concerning their pseudoscientific status". That must be in place and it must be sourced. Martinphi's statement that there is a consensus in parapsychology doesn't mean anything in this list because 1) it isn't sourced here, and 2) parapsychologists aren't mainstream, so their consensus doesn't meet the criteria of the section. There's nothing in the sources making a statement that parapsychologists are required to believe in the paranormal (the best source) or that the majority of them do (weaker source). Even if those sources were present, they would have to come from a mainstream scientific body or an Academy to meet the section's criteria. All we have to go on are sources. Nothing in these sources say anything about the beliefs of parapsychologists. Yes, I'm going on technicalities.

--Nealparr 00:52, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

It seems appropriate to consider parapsychologists' published demographics of their own community as reliable. This isn't among the fringes claims that are under question. Admittedly, I don't know where Martinphi got his information on the consensus among them, though, so we'll have to see when he gets on. Simões (/_contribs) 00:56, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Got a link to that? Scratch that. It still needs a reference from a mainstream scientific body or academy saying that the beliefs of parapsychologists makes parapsychology a pseudoscience in order to meet the criteria of the lead. The reason is because there's nothing in the sources that makes a solid link between parapsychological work and the belief of parapsychologists themselves. If we go just on the assumption (original research) that the belief of scientists dictate their work, we'd have to question the work of the two-thirds of all scientists who believe in God as being pseudoscientific just because they themselves have supernatural beliefs. The sources don't warrant inclusion of parapsychology based on the beliefs of parapsychologists.--Nealparr 01:11, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I like the spirit of your proposal, SA, but I agree with Simões that the article as it stands already implements it adequately. I'd leave exposition of (1) to each article, since this is a list, and covering the rationale for each topic is likely to bloat the list and invite edit warring. Also, it's hard to imagine a V RS that would say (2) without verifiable evidence of (1). thx, Jim Butler 00:56, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Changes I propose

I propose changing "Paranormal subjects" to "Paranormal beliefs" based on the sources for the entry. I also propose dropping parapsychology as unsupported by the current sources in relation to the lead which states "The following have broad consensus concerning their pseudoscientific status. Indicative of this are assertions by mainstream, specialized scientific bodies (e.g., a society of plasma physicists) or one or more national- or regional-level Academies of Science." Paranormal beliefs are certainly supported by the sources cited. Parapsychology isn't. I plan to make these changes, but I don't make WP:BOLD edits. Please, if you have an objection to this edit, let's discuss it before I make the change. I don't want any silly revert wars or accusations of POV-pushing. I didn't set up the article this way. I'm just applying WP:ATT and WP:NOR to its current format. --Nealparr 00:27, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I think that the heading "Paranormal subjects" is probably better than "... beliefs" only as when you click on the link it doens't take you to a "...belief" but a "...subject". Shot info 00:32, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it has to say "beliefs", but I think it's better than "subjects" based on the sources. I took the time to read through every source listed, looking specifically for references to parapsychology, but also looking for wording about paranormal research. Each of these sources deal with paranormal beliefs. I just thought that would be a better wording since that's what the sources are talking about.

--Nealparr 00:55, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Given that they are a subject of an article that WP links to (internally), I thought the matter would be self evident? Shot info

I'm not pinned to the word beliefs. It's just a suggestion. If everyone else likes subjects instead, I can live with that.

--Nealparr 01:01, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I like ScienceApologist's suggestion as written. It's just so hard to explain that not all the concept is opposed to science. For instance, not that it actually happened, say a materialization is said by one person to be matter from nothing. Well, this violates conservation of energy. But others would say it is merely matter which is taken from other sources. How do we explain something like that? What we'd be getting into is a list of concepts or pseudosciences part of which are pseudo, part of which might not be, part of which the status is unknown. But I like the idea of explicitly attributing things in the text: "CSI says that..." That is really a very good idea. I have no problem having parapsychology in the article if phrased as Nealparr said it.

I don't think it is easy to keep it as a simple list and have it well sourced and attributed.

Sub-items are often not supported by the main item's ref. That is the problem here.

The problem is that even though the PA says basically that there is a consensus that some paranormal phenomena exist, study thereof isn't necessarily pseudoscience. Nor is it pseudoscience to study a pseudoscientific belief. Parapsychologists have a very wide range of beliefs about the existence of the paranormal. Are you going to call the parapsychologist who studies paranormal belief, but does not hold such belief, a pseudoscientist? Merely because of the general consensus? This is probably the reason the sources mention the phenomena as pseudoscience, but not the scientific field itself. So how can we extrapolate that parapsychology is a pseudoscience because there are sources which say that some of the phenomena are pseudoscientific concepts? I think it may be clear from the fact that parapsychology as a field is generally not mentioned in the sources that the people who compiled those sources made this distinction, or something like it.

And Nealparr is right that "The sources don't warrant inclusion of parapsychology based on the beliefs of parapsychologists."

Changing the heading to "paranormal beliefs," and then sourcing each entry individually, would be a help. Paranormal subjects is also OK, individually sourced (unless someone can find a heading that works).

Parapsychology clearly isn't sourced for the first tier. Put it in the second, and phrase it for attribution as Nealparr says. But, really, I doubt that this will work properly, because to put it simply and hopefully not to make anyone mad, that Russian source is dreadful. It uses the word "parapsychology" once, and it looks like it might not even be a proper translation. So a better source is needed. I think one could be found, but the reader will probably have to be informed what it is.

I hope I got everything right. Long absence.... Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 05:56, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, another thing I should mention again, is just that maybe there ought to be general topics, like "physics," and then under the genuine thing, have pseudos. If we were doing that, we'd have no problem with headers like "Paranormal." That was a good part of the former article. Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 07:06, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't see catering to the paranormal crowd as a reason to make a change. At least one source explicitly label the paranormal as pseudoscientific. That is sufficient to have a section by that name and place important concepts underneath it. Simões (/_contribs) 22:41, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Nope, that's not the reason. The reason is that the change needs to be made. Per above. Lots of scientists study the paranormal, from other perspectives than belief in it. So that rules out "Paranormal research." Paranormal includes (according to the best sources I know of) anything which is not currently considered possible under current scientific understanding. Thus, since physics is not complete, we can confidently expect that some things which would now be considered paranormal, will exist in the future. Thus, why is it pseudoscience to study effects which might be taking place outside the currently laws of physics?

Martin, your knowledge of science (especially physics) surprises me if you actually believe the above. Shot info 23:38, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Example: Applications of, or even detection of dark matter and energy would have been paranormal a few years ago. It is basically certain that when physics is complete, there will be applications which would now be considered paranormal. I assume here it surprises you negatively. Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 00:01, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

As expressed to you in other places, Dark Matter and Dark Energy were predicted long before being "looked for" (and partly found). This cannot be used for your analogy as what we consider paranormal is not predicted. Nor is it explained. Nor can it be readily found. This is why paranormal subjects are (by definition) paranormal. Now if somebody just invented Dark Matter and said years ago it would bind together the galaxy (say like the Force), with no clear idea, theoretically or practicle evidence eitherway, then yes it would qualify as paranormal. But the fact is, it didn't and it hasn't and it generally has been accepted (see the article for more information, I don't need to describe it here). Your example is flawed which is why I am surprised you continue to use it, especially after it has been pointed out to you several times by others and myself. Moral is, find a better example. It should be noted that physics will probably never be "complete" but this is only due to weight of history :-) Shot info 00:33, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Use whatever analogy you want, and will satisfy you. But the fact remains that the paranormal has become the normal in the past. Yes, dark matter was predicted long before it was found, by the motions observed. So what? If everyone had said "Theory doesn't predict dark matter, therefore your observations and calculations must be wrong," then it would have been a paranormal prediction. An observation of the paranormal, like what people say psi is. No difference here, except in the reception given to the prediction. Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 01:48, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, your analogy is false, and since you are the one making the supposition, we need your analogy. I personally cannot find an example of "the fact remains that the paranormal has become the normal in the past". "An observation of the paranormal, like what people say psi is" simply put, zero observation, just confirmation bias as real observations have shown but ignored. As I said, your knowledge of science (especially physics) surprises me. Shot info 02:08, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

That's why they have the term "perinormal." The rest is just POV, contradicted by good science. And try to be nice. Occasionally it slips out how impatient you are at talking to true-believing idiots. Another example would be continental drift. Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 03:07, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I know you try to be nice. You do, and I like and respect that. It's just sometimes it slips out how much it costs you. It really HURTS.Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 03:10, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Continental_drift again is not a good example. It was a scientific theory yes. Paranormal maybe in paranormal circles? Shot info 04:22, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Continental drift started out paranormal and became normal, just like a lot of things. Read this. You need to study how science really works, not just how it is supposed to work. Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 06:40, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Heh, it is amusing that you change your examples to suit your arguments. So Continental drift started out as a oddball fringe theory, not paranormal (at least not the paranormal definition either in a dictionary or in WP). Wegener is an excellent example of how science works. Theories are proposed to match the evidence. They are tested. If they are found wanting, they are ditched. Continental drift was saved by Plate Tectonics. Now before you launch into a "see an new branch of science" you might want to have a look at the actual science behind tectonics. Heat transfer, radiation etc. etc. All known processes. No "magical" energy transfer or "new" physics. Just old basic math and science applied to match the evidence. I guess you are redefining what paranormal means??? Shot info 06:56, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I find it very bizarre to call things like continental drift and dark matter "paranormal". Is there any evidence anywhere that either of those was ever described as paranormal? There have certainly been plenty of scientific theories that were initially considered impossible, even pseudoscience, but I'd love to see a source describing say, a physics theory initially rejected being described as "paranormal". Source?

I also removed the "perinormal" section from the paranormal article. It's a neologism with barely any use, doesn't appear in dictionaries, doesn't seem otherwise notable, and that section was poorly sourced. --Minderbinder 13:08, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Additionally, which source specifically calls the paranormal pseudoscience? Not this one. It says "Belief in the Paranormal or Pseudoscience Two different things. That is upheld in the definition at the bottom. It also says "that people who believe in the existence of paranormal phenomena may have trouble distinguishing fantasy from reality." Quite so. But this is not saying that the paranormal is always pseudoscientific. Is this the source to which you are referring? Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 23:25, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

], ] Shot info 00:36, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I mean one that's used in the article? Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 01:48, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

It's interesting (to me anyway) that Martin asks for a source that specifically says the paranormal is pseudoscience and we are then provided with two sources which clearly don't do it.Davkal 01:02, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

For those who find self-evident not so evident: "any of various methods, theories, or systems, as astrology, psychokinesis, or clairvoyance, considered as having no scientific basis. " and "of or pertaining to the claimed occurrence of an event or perception without scientific explanation, as psychokinesis, extrasensory perception, or other purportedly supernatural phenomena. " kindof sound the same don't they :-) Shot info 01:27, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

You have an interesting (to me anyway) notion of "self-evident". I think the inclusion of "methods, systems or theories" in the pseudoscience definition and it's absence in the paranormal definition shows where your reasoning has gone astray.Davkal 11:39, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

We mean a source which will work in the article?? Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 01:48, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Sure we can. I cannot find where dictionaries are not RS nor V (I have heard it but personally cannot find it). Shot info 02:08, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Read how this article in particular is sourced. Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 03:07, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Guys, we can talk about "Paranormal" and pseudoscience some other time or place. Here, I'm talking about the unsourced "Parapsychology". The attribution is very important because the word "pseudoscience" is a pejorative term. There's guidelines for that and those guidelines are further compounded by the lead wording which states "broad consensus" and "mainstream, specialized scientific bodies" "or one or more national- or regional-level Academies of Science."

It's pretty simple. It doesn't matter what is pseudoscience and what isn't. It doesn't matter what we personally think. This is a list, and in that list are terms, and those terms are attributed to some external group meeting the lead wording. "Paranormal" (in my opinion) is clearly sourced to several mainstream academic bodies. That makes complete sense considering the definition of the word paranormal: "exceeds the limits of what is deemed physically possible according to current scientific assumptions." It's not hard to find an academic source calling things that are by definition outside science, but claiming to be scientific, pseudoscience. If it's outside of science, it can't be science. Maybe the definition is flawed, but that has to be taken up with the sources.

I'm not talking about "Paranormal" here. My proposed change, which I haven't seen any reason not to make, is to drop "Parapsychology" from the list. I can't find any sources anywhere (and I've been looking for the past week or so) that says parapsychology and comes directly from an academic body, much less shows a broad consensus. The only one that comes close is the RAoS quoted in the Skeptical Inquirer. The only problem with that one is that it's second party and 30 out of 500 members isn't a broad consensus. Paranormal, keep. Parapsychology, drop. If anything, put it somewhere else. If it's listed in the Skeptical Encyclopedia, for example, list it there. There's no sources anyone's presented to put it in the main section.

Preemptive responses: 1) Parapsychology isn't a paranormal subject, it's a method applied to paranormal subjects, 2) Parapsychology doesn't require a belief in the paranormal, 3) I can't find any mainsteam academic sources showing a broad consensus that parapsychology is a paranormal subject or requires a belief in the paranormal, 4) I can't find any mainsteam academic sources showing a broad consensus that even suggest that parapsychology is dependent on paranormal beliefs, and 5) I can't find any mainsteam academic sources showing a broad consensus mentioning parapsychology in relation to pseudoscience at all.

Let me know if I haven't justified this change completely (just dropping or moving parapsychology).

--Nealparr 02:46, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I thought we already agreed that parapsychology isn't sourced. And I solved the problem of paranormal not being sourced properly, but Simoes, typically, just reverted me, per his "no compromise" position stated above. Nealparr, if you never make bold edits, let me assure you that you can talk on here all you want, and it will do you no good. Although maybe you could get Shot info to do the editing for you. Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 03:07, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Just giving everyone a chance to say what they want to say. I don't want it reverted. I want it sourced, moved, or removed. Plus I don't know if it's in the Skeptics Encyclopedia just yet. Haven't gotten to the library. So I can't just move it there. Right now I'm inclined to remove it, but if it's in the Skeptics Encyclopedia, it can just be moved instead.

--Nealparr 03:17, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I found a source that mentions parapsychology as a pseudoscience at CSI. The source says "It may seem paradoxical, but I learned the scientific method investigating parapsychology, a pseudoscience." and the guy writes for CSI, and it was published at the CSI website. That at least shows that CSI endorses his characterization of parapsychology. If anyone can find a better source for inclusion in the CSI section, feel free to modify it.

--Nealparr 04:35, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

They disagree. Randi disagrees with that. Where is the source? Anyway, it doesn't matter here if you are right. It matters if you are going to get reverted by Simoes or others. Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 06:40, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Re Nealparr's point: what of the notion of undue weight. We now have parapsychology identified as a pseudoscience on account of one mention in an article in the magazine of a sceptical group. It's not as if the point of the article was that parapsychology was a pseudoscience and yet this one (throwaway and seemingly "paradoxical") statement is taken as evidence that CSI (as a whole) endorses the view. What about all the other things that are said. What about Hyman and Honorton's joint statement about the difficulty of explaining parapsychology's findings in conventional terms and their suggestions for further safeguards for future experiments and their conclusion that research should continue. Even Carl Sagan (in the Demon Haunted World, I think) suggested that the Ganzfeld experiments were interesting and should be continued. Why, then, do we have these arch-skeptics (Hyman and Sagan) advocating pseudoscience? We don't, they are simply advocating good science be done investigating some aspects of the paranormal - exactly the aspects of the paranormal currently being investigated in a rigorous scientific way by parapsychologists.Davkal 12:03, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Also, the notion that any investigation of paranormal phenomena is by definition a pseudoscientific one - ie. parapsychology is a pseudoscience because it investigates the paranormal - has interesting repercussions for all the scientific tests of the paranormal that skeptical organisations claim to have done. I look forward to seeing some of the skeptical editors who are making this point here buzzing through wiki like busy little bees changing all the references to, say, Randi's scientific testing of paranormal claims to Randi's pseudoscientific testing of paranormal claims. I look forward very much to reading that Randi has offered $1m dollars to anyone who can demonstrate paranormal abilities under controlled pseudoscientific conditions.Davkal 12:27, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

If the sourcing for this section is inappropriate, it can be better sourced or the entry can be removed. If there's an entry in the Skeptic's Encyclopedia, that's good enough for this section. I don't have that book just yet. Can anyone check it?

--Nealparr 18:56, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Has this turned into playing with semantics?

So let's recap.

• Parapsychology is the study of "psi" experiences, basically the study of paranormal things.
• Aside from the definition itself, it seems that pretty much everything parapsychology studies falls under paranormal (is there something that wouldn't?).
• We have sources calling many paranormal topics (including many topics studied by parapsychology) pseudoscientific.
• We have sources calling "paranormal" itself pseudoscience.
• Many mainstream academic sources simply don't use the term "parapsychology" and just refer to it as studying the paranormal.

There doesn't seem to be much dispute that we have sources calling the paranormal, and a number of specific paranormal topics pseudoscience. And there doesn't seem to be dispute that parapsychology studies these topics that have been called pseudoscientific. The question is then, is studying something pseudoscientific a pseudoscience? If it's not, then would "Time Cube" be pseudoscientific while "Timecubeology" is not? Would "perpetual motion" be pseudoscientific while "perpetualmotionology" is not? I don't agree with that logic.

The other defense of parapsychology is that we haven't found sources describing that term as pseudoscience, although we have sources saying that paranormal is pseudoscience as well as many individual topics studied by parapsychology. It seems a bit ridiculous to insist that a source that describes something that fits the definition of parapsychology isn't talking about parapsychology just because they don't use the term. Do we really need a source describing "ufology" as pseudoscience if we have many sources describing UFO study as pseudoscience? I also disagree with the notion that a source needs to say that ALL paranormal things are pseudoscience - it seems the equivalent of going to duck and insisting that any mention of ducks quacking be removed because while there are plenty of sources documenting ducks quacking, no source says "ALL ducks quack". After all, this article hasn't ever listed "All paranormal stuff", has it? --Minderbinder 13:38, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Where are all these mainstream scientific sources that say studying the paranormal is a pseudoscience? I think they have pseudoexistence.Davkal 13:50, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

The National Science Foundation. --Minderbinder 14:53, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

As I said, pseudoexistence! That chapter is about belief in the paranormal and how evil The X-Files is! (My friend used to go out with Gillian Anderson BTW.) At no point in the entire document are the words or phrases "parapsychology", "paranormal research", "paranormal study", "study of the paranormal" or anything like it even used, let alone labeled pseudoscience.Davkal 15:17, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I missed the word "studying" in your post above. Your post just goes back to what I said above - you insist that studying pseudoscience isn't pseudoscience. I don't agree with this semantic distinction for reasons explained above. By your logic, do you consider studying UFO's, bigfoot, or Time Cube pseudoscientific or not? --Minderbinder 16:11, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

It depends how you study them. If you study them scientifically then no, and if you study them pseudoscientifically then yes. Science is a method, and that method can be applied to to many things. Now, my question to you: do you consider language and thought to be paranormal (because, scientifically, we haven't got the foggiest yet) and therefore any attempt to study them pseudoscientific? Davkal 17:04, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make, but no, I don't consider language and thought to be paranormal. Do you? --Minderbinder 18:40, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

The point I'm trying to make is that they fit almost perfectly with this: of or pertaining to the claimed occurrence of an event or perception without scientific explanation. Which, as we all no know, is the definition of paranormal. The point being that arguments from dictionary definitions don't often get you very far.Davkal 18:48, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Minderbinder, I think you are correct regarding the semantic gamesmanship going on. The warping of word definitions (e.g. "paranormal") is a good indicator that POV is being pushed. Thankfully, WP articles must reflect the most conformist view possible, i.e. the mainstream view. -- LuckyLouie 18:05, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

The only people playing semantic games are those trying to combine two dictionary definitions, an article translated from Russian, and a variety of other sources to try to claim that, taken together, they show that parapsychology is a pseudoscience.Davkal 18:14, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Hold up a sec. It was I that originally drew the distinction, so let me please explain why it isn't semantics. Each of the mainstream sources refer to pseudoscientific beliefs. That is, beliefs claiming to be scientific that aren't based on scientific evidence. UFOs. Great example. Belief in UFOs having to do with science is pseudoscientific because there's no scientific evidence for UFOs. Psychic abilities. Another great example. Belief in psychic abilities having to do with science is pseudoscientific because the mainstream feels that there is no scientific evidence for psychic abilities. Astrology. Great example. Belief in astrology having to do with science is pseudoscientific because there's no scientific evidence for astrology. I can continue, but you get the idea.

Things like the Time Cube and perpetual motion aren't pseudoscientific as merely terms. You can verify that the term exists. It's the belief in the Time Cube, or that perpetual motion is possible, and specifically the belief that those beliefs are supported by science, that is the pseudoscience. Any belief that is misrepresented as being supported by science is a pseudoscientific belief. Sources for those abound.

So what the sources here are refering to is lack of a scientific foundation to support the belief in paranormal subjects. That's totally fine. The non-semantic distinction I'm drawing is that parapsychology and parapsychologists are real. They're easy to believe in. They're scientifically verifiable by walking up to one of them and touching them.

Parapsychology is not necessarily a belief system. Studying subjects based on a pseudoscientific belief may or may not be considered pseudoscience. Certainly those guys who applied science to astrology and determined it was pseudoscientific aren't considered pseudoscientists themselves. It's all a bunch of gray area. You guys are absolutely right to ask these questions. They've been asked and debated since parapsychology came about.

The sole point and distinction here is that mainstream academia has not ruled one way or the other on the matter. That's what I'm saying, but more importantly that is what isn't sourced. Paranormal beliefs, certainly. Some paranormal research, certainly. The pseudoscientific nature of parapsychology. Not remotely. It's a tough question involving the epistemology of science, what qualifies as scientific research, and so on. Of course no mainstream academic group is going to make a ruling on that. It's not obvious. It requires a philosophical stance that rules out many other so-called sciences.

You can come down on paranormal beliefs all you want to without lumping parapsychology in. I think the mainstream sources have done that. Like I said, the scientists who ruled out astrology using science are still considered scientists. To make the non-semantic leap to pseudoscience, a source has to say it. There's plenty of sources that make that leap. The section it was in, however, required a broad consensus in academic societies.

No source will say "ALL ducks quack", but I really doubt you'll find a source that says ornithologists are ducks either.

--Nealparr 19:38, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Here's the request for a source that says "all things paranormal are pseudoscience": . Do you agree with that claim that for paranormal to be listed, there must be a source saying "all things paranormal are pseudoscience"? --Minderbinder 20:22, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

If you're asking me, I only fully agree with the things I say (most of the time). I support, or rather I think the sources support, inclusion of "paranormal" in the main section, but not parapsychology. Sources don't have to be as strong when they aren't being used to lay a negative term on a group of people that have at least some support. That's a controversial use of the term, and controversy requires better sourcing. Whatever controversy there is on listing paranormal, it's against a nonspecific, general, and vague group of people. It still needs to be sourced, but I think the sources here are fine for that.

Again, I would change it to paranormal beliefs myself, because that's what the sources are talking about, but that change would be semantic.

I'm not lawyering here. I'm trying to keep Misplaced Pages from making a bullshit claim that isn't supported by the sources, because I happen to be very interested in that debate personally. Misplaced Pages articles get regurgitated everywhere. This is a fairly recent article and already it's copied to a number of sites . There's a long running debate over the pseudoscientific status of parapsychology and that debate should not be determined by Misplaced Pages and regurgitated around the web. It's a bogus claim that mainstream academic science has a broad consensus against parapsychology.

--Nealparr 20:47, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

This debate I keep talking about that hasn't been decided in mainstream science is actually one of the Great Debates of Science. Can science be applied to subjects that aren't supposed to exist according to current scientific models? The hot paranormal article on Misplaced Pages about two years ago was the Anomalous phenomena article. In fact, "Paranormal" used to redirect there. I can't say that I wrote the current incarnation of it because all I did was splice together writings from other science articles on Misplaced Pages, but I am responsible for most of what is there now (which has been stable for some time now). This Great Debate I am talking about is perfectly summed up by that article. Can science deal with anomalies in a scientific model? The article uses the example of white and black swans (borrowed from the Falsifiability article). We can make the observation that swans are white, but we have to be prepared for the remote possibility that there are black swans, and can't make the statement that all swans are white factually. We can assume that all swans are white until encountering a black swan, but that's all we can do. There's a huge debate about how to approach this in science. How do we move from assumptions to facts? Popper's suggestion only came as recently as the 1930s. It's an ongoing debate that hasn't been fully decided. Can science study things that aren't supposed to exist? Is science only pure science? Pure science still hasn't come to grips with things like consciousness and how that works. It's ongoing debate. Paranormal claims that attempt to be scientific, there's a solid consensus on that. Parapsychology, however, is part of the overall debate. There's varying opinions on whether it actually is science, and it's not like it's the poster child for how science can approach the idea of anomalies, but that's the debate. There's two sides. It's ongoing. It hasn't been decided by the mainstream. To say it has been, even in a simple list, requires a pretty good source that says that this Great Debate is closed. Pseudoscience is a term used to dismiss subjects as unscientific. There's no cause here to make that dismissive ruling.

--Nealparr 22:08, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

"would "Time Cube" be pseudoscientific while "Timecubeology" is not? Would "perpetual motion" be pseudoscientific while "perpetualmotionology" is not? I don't agree with that logic."

Well, I do. That is why a shaman can be practicing pseudoscience, but an anthropologist who studies the shaman is not.

"The other defense of parapsychology is that we haven't found sources describing that term as pseudoscience, although we have sources saying that paranormal is pseudoscience as well as many individual topics studied by parapsychology."

Here is the relevant paragraph:

"Editors often make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article in order to advance position C. However, this would be an example of a new synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, and as such it would constitute original research. "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published this argument in relation to the topic of the article."

As the experts who put together this article and its definitions know, parapsychologists agree that a lot of trickery and pseudoscience go on in the paranormalist milieu. They study some of these things scientifically, even though some parapsychologists don't even believe in them. The fact here is, you haven't sourced parapsychology as a pseudoscience, especially for the first tier. Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 20:28, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

anthropology:shamanism::parapsychology:paranormal belief. Sorry, that syllogism I just do not buy. First of all, parapsychology is not an academic discipline and furthermore parapsychology attempts to study paranormmal phenomena while anthropologists study the human characteristics of shamanism. They are very different in their goals. A better syllogism might be creation science:creationism::parapsychology:paranomral belief. That would be awarded a score of correct by the ETS. --ScienceApologist 21:10, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

"parapsychology is not an academic discipline". Except for the fact that it is, what you say is correct.Davkal 23:14, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

You haven't put forth a syllogism, and you are wrong that parapsychology is not an academic discipline. At least put the syllogism in proper form so others can see what you are talking about. I don't even recognize that as symbolic logic. Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 00:38, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Personally

Personally, I don't have any major problems with this article as it now stands. My major problem with the article was the lack of a decent source for 1) putting parapsychology in the first tier, and 2), putting all the other paranormal stuff under that heading. As it now stands, I'm pretty comfortable with the article.

My second major reason for being involved in the article was merely to support other editors who were trying to improve it. I thought I could be of service in helping them to persevere in the face of disruptive gang editing. This editing included deletion of citation requests; reversion when material -which had been unsourced for weeks (with citation requests)- was deleted; use of an RfC to try to get rid of me; threats to do the same to others; and comments like "there will be no compromise."

I have observed that these un-Misplaced Pages-like tactics have abated slightly recently, and the article has undergone most of the major necessary changes. Thus, I find myself mostly satisfied with its status.

I would suggest only that we should have general headings such as I once inserted (a reverted edit). This would help both with NPOV and understanding. Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 03:23, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:AGF is always something to consider rather than "disruptive gang editing" etc. etc. Shot info 04:18, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened."

-- Winston Churchill

Keep walkin' Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 04:45, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

"To assume good faith is a fundamental principle on Misplaced Pages" - Misplaced Pages Guildline Shot info 04:55, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Who assumed bad faith? I am observing actions, and overt statements of intent. Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 05:33, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Suggest you (re)read WP:AGF before declaring actions by a fellow editor(s) un-Misplaced Pages-like (and the other examples). Curiously even with all the negativity you expressed the article was improved. Shot info 05:50, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I've got a right -even a duty- to say exactly what is going on. Beyond a certain point, ignoring things is counterproductive. The article improved not in spite of my persistence, but because of it. It didn't improve until I persisted. Don't accuse one side of negativity, while ignoring the disruptive and highly negative actions of the other. I stand by what I said 100%, and I will repeat it: the actions of the power block on this article constituted highly disruptive, un-Misplaced Pages-like gang editing, and also the use of power-tactics to try and get me banned: all in order to avoid sourcing the items, in controversion of Misplaced Pages rules.

I also admit to making mistakes. This does not mean that I should ignore the editing tactics of others- especially others who defend their actions. Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 06:28, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

User talk pages guys. --Nealparr 06:43, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• B-Class physics articles
• High-importance physics articles
• B-Class physics articles of High-importance