Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:44, 15 September 2006

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.

Template:WikiProject Paranormal1 Template:RFMF

Archives
Archive 1 (till May 19, 2006)

Mainstream Scientific View

I think it's important that the mainstream scientific view, that telepathy is viewed as pseudoscience, is mentioned in this article. siddharth 05:34, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

While it is true that telepathy's status is in doubt, I would not be so confident in a statement that all success was the result of error. Perhaps "Successes have often been accused as being the result of error" would suffice as a better introduction.

Alan Turing (of Turing Test fame) was a believer in telepathy. It's in the key essay that he wrote on the subject. He eventually took cyanide due to being persecuted for being gay. He also helped win the Second World War by breaking German codes. Quite a guy.

I am sorry Alan Turing lost his Government Security Clearance for being Gay. I wonder how the Government classifies people who believe in extrasensory perception.

Naming a scientist (and I have my doubts that Turing qualifies) that believes in a subject is no proof that it's accepted by mainstream science, as it's generally possible to find a fringe scientist (or, in the case of Turing, a scientist in another field) who will support any pseudoscience or religion. You have to look for consensus. (Bold text added in edit)

So, let's go into how we can determine if mainstream science would accept telepathy or not (I feel that guiding you through the scientific thought-process would be the most educational). First, science would note that there have been extremely few studies done on telepathy that contain statistically significant positive results and were not flawed. The small number is less than 5%, the margin for statistical significance, so when the studies are taken as a whole, the fact that less than 5% show 95% significance is itself insignificant. (Look at it this way: You're rolling a 20-sided die. The number 20 has a 5% chance to show up. If you roll it once and 20 shows up, that's technically statistically significant that 20 is more likely to show up than it should be. But if you roll it a lot of times, on average only around 5% of your rolls will be 20's. This is like only 5% of your studies showing 95% significance, so when they're weighted together they're found to be insignificant.
Then, science would also note that there have been no studies disproving telepathy, but remind itself that this is simply because it's logically impossible to disprove a phenomenon. For instance, it's impossible to prove that there aren't backwards-flying hippogryphs who deliver pizza to the president of Sweden on nights when no one's watching, but no sane person would take this as evidence that there are.
This is also a problem with arguments against the existence of telepathy: Absense of evidence isn't evidence of absense. So, science at this point must conclude that telepathy possibly exists, and possibly doesn't exist. Now, it goes on to determine whether it is likely that it would exist.
For this, we must extend the phrase used above to accomodate the Modus Tollens exception: Absense of evidence isn't evidence of absense unless it is expected that evidence would have been found if this were present. This means we can phrase the argument in this manner:

• If p exists, we would expect to find evidence q by investigative manner m.
• Investigative measure m was undertaken, and it failed to find evidence q.
• Therefore, it is most likely that p does not exist.

Rephrasing it for our particular argument:

• If telepathy exists, we would expect to see statistical evidence of it in the many tests that have been performed to test it.
• Many tests have been performed to test for telepathy, and there is no statistical evidence that it exists.
• Therefore, it is most likely that telepathy does not exist.

Now, anticipating a couple objections: First, some may object that the experimental setting might preclude the functioning of telepathy for some unknown reason. While I admit this is possible, this complaint forces us to ask the advocate of telepathy to provide some other form of proof, and no proof of an acceptable form has been provided.
The second objection I expect to be raised is about "experiential evidence." There is a good reason that science doesn't accept this form of evidence in its reasoning, and it's that humans are immensely prone to bias and error. In this case, it's the Confirmation Bias that comes into play. For instance, a mother thinks of her children often in normal situations, and also often worries about them (particularly if they're young). This worry isn't unfounded, as children frequently do get into trouble of some sort. So, if the mother happens to be worrying about her child at a time when the child actually is in trouble, and later learns about it, she'll immediately note the coincidence. This stands out in her mind (and possibly the times that she doesn't worry about her child and her child isn't in danger as well), but she has to weigh the frequency of this against two other factors: The frequency of times she worries about her child and her child isn't in danger, and the frequency of times she doesn't worry about her child and her child is in danger. If both of those are high enough, it means that there could be no correlation between her worrying and her child being in danger.
But that isn't how the human mind seems to work. Studies have shown that when people are asked what information is necessary to judge whether a correlation exists, most people studied said that only the information about the number of times the two are present together and the two are both absent are needed. Statistically, you need both that data and the contradictory data in order to judge whether the correlation is present. It's also notable that when people are asked to judge whether there's a negative correlation between two phenomena, they choose to judge only the data that confirms the negative correlation and ignor evidence of a positive correlation. This is why we can't use experiential evidence; people are lead astray by it all too often. --DrLeebot 14:40, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Not that I don't disagree with anything you said about telepathy (I agree with all of it!), I disagree with you refering to Turing as a 'fringe scientist' and "having doubts that he qualifies ". Turing is viewed as the founder of modern computer science, and he is really not viewed as fringe by anyone in the community. I had never heard of him believing in telepathy before, and I found some evidence of it http://cognews.com/1066717766/index_html (the quote is cited)

"I assume that the reader is familar with the idea of extra-sensory perception, and the meaning of the four items of it viz. telepathy, clairvoyance, precognition and psycho-kinesis. These disturbing phenomena seem to deny all our usual scientific ideas. How we should like to discredit them! Unfortunately the statistical evidence, at least for telepathy, is overwhelming." (Turing 1950 p.453)

I think, at that time, the evidence that people we showing for telepathy was not altogether honest, and I think Turing appears now more gullible than stupid, in this respect. But Leebot's point remains, a scientist vouching for a theory doesn't prove anything, especially if it is a scientist in some other domain. Newton had some odd ideas about alchemy, I believe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tyir (talk • contribs) 12:19, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

(Watch the triple negatives there - "Not that I don't disagree" means "I disagree," but that's an irrelevant point here. You clarified it later in this case, but I'm just warning you in case it happens again without clarification and you get misinterpreted.)

As for what I said about Turing, I meant no disrespect towards him; simply that I didn't know personally that he definitely would qualify as a scientist (hence, "have my doubts that he qualifies" being used in the sense of "am not personally sure he qualifies"). Also, though it might seem I implied he was a fringe scientist, I was just speaking in the hypothetical. I've gone back and striked out the first comment and added in clarification on the second.

When writing that, I knew that there was some case I'd heard about in my Critical Thinking class that related to some computer guy referencing strong statistical evidence for telepathy. With your quote there, I'm pretty sure that it actually was Turing, and I think it was the Soal experiment he was referring to (though at this point I can't guarantee that's it, or even an actual person). I'll go check my sources on that and get back so I can complete my refutation of the original argument. (Quick summary: Soal's experiment was flawed simply because he cheated in it and fudged data. It wasn't proven until much later, and even then not everyone who knew of the experiment knew of the refutation.) ---DrLeebot 19:11, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I've found it, and it was Soal. See Soal-Goldney Experiment. I've also added this as an external link at the bottom of the article. Granted, it's definitely POV, but there are already too many in the other direction that one skeptical link is doing more to help balance it out than harm it.

I'm thinking that the best first step towards taking care of the POV issues in this article is to redo the Experiments section. This experiment can be put in, along with criticisms of it, and the same can be done for others. I'll check a few other articles on controversial subjects to see if I can find any parallels to use as a guide for how to write it neutrally.

A question on referencing, though: Since the site I gave used various references to form together points about the experiment, would it be reasonable to just use it as a reference, or should I take each reference it uses individually? ---DrLeebot 19:35, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

After looking at a few parallel articles, it would seem that a section devoted to criticism of the subject matter by the Scientific Community would be appropriate here. ---DrLeebot 19:57, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for being confusing. Agreed about adding a criticisms section. Rereading the page, it is much less POV than it used to be, but I still get the feeling that this page is way to strongly biased in favor of it being legit, considering it is a pseudoscience. I think we should work on this quite a bit. A new section sounds good, also, Recent experiments and Non-classical sciences have to be rewritten. Tyir 23:21, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Revisions to Experiments Section

I've begun the process of completely redoing the experiments section. At the moment, it only covers the Ganzfeld experiments, but I plan to add the Soal-Goldney experiment soon. I also plan to go in and set up references for certain parts of it. To any other editors, please feel free to discuss the format I used, or add on other experiments. ---DrLeebot 16:45, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

DrLeebot -- It's great to see someone doing some serious work on this article! I think the format you used for Ganzfeld experiments is excellent, as is the content. I have a few comments:

• Should this section be titled "Types of telepathy experiments" rather than "Notable experiments"?

I think it's better this way, honestly, even if some of the categories do cover certain types. Ganzfeld Experiments are notable as a group due to the Meta-analysis that has been done over all of the different experiments performed. For most of the other entries that will be put in here, it's likely that they'll be either isolated experiments or a more closely connected string (say, all the dowsing experiments performed as part of the Randi challenge). ---DrLeebot 15:33, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

• Along the same lines, perhaps one of the subsections within each experiment-type section should be "Locations" (or something like that) that lists universities or laboratories where this type of experiment has been performed.

Maybe, though I'm not sure how relavent that would be to someone reading the article. Particularly with the Ganzfeld experiments, the list would be quite extensive. ---DrLeebot 15:33, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

• Citations are needed--possibly following each entry in the "Locations" list. The citation would tell where the results were published or summarized/described.

Oh yes; I'll try to get at that today. ---DrLeebot 15:33, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

And done. Is there a way to make multiple references direct to the same entry in the Notes section, so we don't have the same source repeated there? ---DrLeebot 16:17, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think there is, aside from using <ref>ibid</ref> KarlBunker 16:53, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

• I confess I wasn't familiar with the concept of "psi assumption," so it was a little frustrating not to understand WTH it meant until I got to the bottom of the experiment description. It would be great if you could whip up a brief new WP article for the term.

Ah yes, that one's already on my to-do list. ---DrLeebot 15:33, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

• It took me a while to figure out what "handling cues" refers to; I tried to clarify it.

That looks good, thank you. ---DrLeebot 16:17, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Again, great work. I hope you keep up with this. KarlBunker 17:58, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

A note to 71.109.99.101: Thank you for your contribution, though certain parts of your edits seem to give the section a slant too much towards the pro-telepathy perspective. Notably:

• The change to the first mention of the psi assumption. First of all, you said (uncited) that "Typically, odds against chance are high." This is a vast generalization of all Psi experiments, and gives the impression that most give positive results, when this is notably not the case. I put back in the reference to the Psi Assumption, as I plan to fill in that article soon. I also believe the "Psi-missing" note (that below-chance results are also attributed to telepathy) is notable.
• To the "Randomization" criticism. When you remove the final sentence, the entire section ceases to be a criticism and is thus pointless. I've since added a reference that comfirms this is the case.
• Leaving out most of the explanation and in only the final sentence makes it sound like this criticism is almost supporting the Psi assumption.

---DrLeebot 16:17, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I've updated the section with the Soal-Goldney experiment now, please look over it. Also, note that I left a {{Fact}} template on one of the criticisms at the end which I remember specifically reading about, but which I can't find a source for. I'm almost positive it's true, which is why I put it in; I just can't find the source. ---DrLeebot 20:41, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I've just added in a Randi challenge section, and with that I believe enough is there that the section is no longer a stub. I don't personally know of any other notable experiments that should go in; however I'm open to suggestions (or just go for it yourself). ---DrLeebot 14:54, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to see the J. B. Rhine experiments discussed in this format. Certainly they're among the most notable ESP experiments in terms of history. If that were done, the discussion of Rhine in the "Telepathy in history" section could be shortened way down. Likewise, the Montaque Ullman/Stanley Krippner experiments (if they're worthy of being called that--the brief description makes them sound pretty lame) mentioned in the History section could be discussed in the Experiments section and removed from the History section.

--KarlBunker 20:12, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Ah yes, good ideas. I'm not so familiar with those experiments personally, but I'll see what I can come up with. ---DrLeebot 14:11, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry it took some time, but I've gotten Rhine's experiments up there now. ---DrLeebot 13:47, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

New or Old Phenom

I don't know how this is backed up:

But the sending and receiving of messages from individual to individual by mind alone seems to be a relatively modern idea.

I think the sentence right before it even shows it to be false:

In the Bible for example, some prophets are described as having the ability to see into the future

Those characters, and a few others in antiquity, were given those predictions by god (or some other spirit force). Much are done telepathically between the two characters. It could be said that stories of sending messages without speech or other cues exist in antiquity, however the belief in common telepathic powers is somewhat modern.

It's just an idea because I don't know the subject. It seems this isn't true.JoeHenzi 03:15, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I think you make a valid point, and I've removed that short paragraph.KarlBunker 10:10, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure we should categorize recerving messages from a god as telepathy. First of all, would any prophet dare say they're reading the mind of God? Secondly, if you assume the omnipotence of a god, he/she/it could just plant the necessary thoughts in the mind of the prophet, whether or not they're an actual psychic.

Prophets that claim to see into the future would most definitely be considered Clairvoyents, however. But don't fall into the trap of classifying all forms of ESP under Telepathy. Telepathy is best defined as just mind reading and Remote Viewing. ---DrLeebot 12:43, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Demonstration of Telepathy

A simple demonstration of telepathy can be seen here http://milaadesign.com/wizardy.html Lumos3 10:46, 19 July 2006 (UTC) ;)

While that of course isn't a true example of telepathy, it actually does give an example of one type of trick that is sometimes used to fool people into believing it. Simply repeating the game a few times will show that the number you get is always a multiple of 9 (10X + Y - (X + Y) = 9X), and all the symbols on the multiples of 9 on the last page are the same, and what shows up. ---DrLeebot 12:56, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Telepathy in Fiction

If the "list would grow indefinitly", perhaps it's better to split it off into a seperate article and place a small summary here. Personally I see no reason why we should refrain from mentioning references to fiction -- De Zeurkous (zeurkous@lichee.nichten.info), Thu Aug 3 12:57:32 UTC 2006

Telepathy is such a common element of fiction that I think it's silly to try to list instances of it, either here or on a seperate article. It's like having a section or article on "horses in fiction." However, better to put it in another article than here. KarlBunker 14:08, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

FTL travel is about as common in fiction as telepathy, yet fiction is interwoven in the FTL article. Can't we do the same here and split the rest off? Of course, only notable instances should be listed.

About my "credit" to Star Trek: i'm not crediting Star Trek for the invention of RF-telepathy. And it's not the "standard notion" either -- AFAIK many works of fiction portray it as magic. If it is the "standard notion", why does the article specifically not mention this *at all*? -- De Zeurkous (zeurkous@lichee.nichten.info), Thu Aug 3 14:37:57 UTC 2006

The notion of telepathy as being analogous to radio transmission isn't mentioned in the article because it's too obvious to warrant mention. With some latitude, it is the only way of (semi-)realistically viewing telepathy. Even it a work of fiction protrays telepathy as magic, the operation of it is still analogous to radio transmission. KarlBunker 15:37, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it may be the only way of realistically viewing it, but then again the only way to realistically view glass is as a pile of sand, but not all people know that either. In my opinion, when writing an accurate encyclopedic article, you can't state a technical detail as "too obvious". Even though it may be one line, IMO it has to be mentioned -- De Zeurkous (zeurkous@lichee.nichten.info, Thu Aug 3 16:47:36 UTC 2006

I'm afraid your glass analogy doesn't help me to understand your point. We're only talking about the simple comparison: "telepathy works (would work) something like radio." I'm saying that that comparison is obvious in the sense that there is no alternative to it and therefor it provides no information. Telepathy is defined as thoughts transmitted from one person to another; if you add to that definition "like a radio signal is transmitted to a receiver" you haven't added anything that wasn't obvious in the original definition. KarlBunker 17:19, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

1. I have never thought about telepathy in terms of radio transmission before, but now that you mention it, it does seem obvious. But were it not for the mention here, I don't know whether I would have made the connection at all. So in my mind, that's enough to warrant stating "the obvious." Also do consider that not all who come here speak English as a primary language, so putting in comparisons like that could help some people (helps me on other language pages, when the main phrase goes over my head but it's compared to a phrase that I can parse). Kilyle 08:14, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

2. As to the use of telepathy in fiction...that's the whole reason I came to this article! I didn't expect to see much about telepathy "in the real world" since (basically) it only "really" exists in fiction. (Interesting card tricks aside.) Kilyle 08:14, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

3. It would seem most useful to split the article into real world studies and fictional application. The strongest reason for this is that the two articles necessarily take very difference stances on the reality of the subject matter: The "telepathy in real life" article necessarily takes a skeptical view, points out the numerous reasons to doubt the validity of the studies, etc., whereas the "telepathy in fiction" article would not need to delve into reasons for skepticism (there's no doubt that the abilities exist), but deal with theory, application (usefulness, drawbacks), distinctions, conventions, and so forth. This is the information I was hoping to learn. The distinction between telepathy-by-touch and telepathy-as-radio, for example, is useful, as is the distinction between telepathy-between-anyone and telepathy-between-specific-people (e.g., twins), and the distinction between passive reception (a telepath who can't put thoughts into others' minds) and active transmission (e.g., Jean Grey being able to talk with her non-telepath boyfriend/husband), as well as potential for inducing visions or controlling other minds. There are plenty of Misplaced Pages articles on various things found only in fiction (werewolves, vampires, FTL travel, IRS refunds...), so simply being fictional isn't a good reason to not include the information. Kilyle 08:14, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

4. Shouldn't "Ghost In The Shell/Satnd Alone Complex" be also included in the list.there are many many events when almost all of them use telepathy. (dragonballtarun@yahoo.co.in)59.94.182.28 06:32, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Telepathy vs. Telekinesis

I've always understood that telepathy relates to the (nonphysical) mind, whereas telekinesis is control over objects. I don't think it's right to say that someone who levitates objects or bends spoons is performing telepathy. Am I wrong, or does this article need to be corrected (near the end where it gives examples of telekinesis and calls them "telepathy")? I'd think that these examples of telekinesis should be moved to a different article, although the telepathy article should have a "see also" link to telekinesis, perhaps with a side note "(manipulating objects with one's mind)". Kilyle 08:14, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Your definitions are correct - even in the last statement about Street Fighter, the two forms are defined as different - read minds vs. move objects. There is a link at the bottom to Psychokinesis, which lists Telekinesis as another form of the word. DrSad 13:53, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Ganzfeld experiments; results

User:Kazuba has modified the figures in this section from:

"claim a hit rate of between 30% and 40%, which is significantly higher than the 25% expected by chance. "

to:

"claim a hit rate of 13%, significantly higher than expected by chance."

with the comment:

"More accurate and easier to understand this way. Chance 25%. Hit rate between 35% and 40%. Looks deceptive."

I don't see how these sets of figures are equivalent, or how the latter is "easier to understand this way". Could Kazuba or someone else explain? KarlBunker 15:55, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Also, Kazuba, please note that you aren't using the "This is a minor edit" flag correctly. See Help:Minor edit. KarlBunker 16:35, 5 September 2006 (UTC

```From what I could gather Utts and Hyman both came to the conclusion the results were 38%, chance being 25%; showing only the difference from chance as 13%. Using the figure of 13% higher than chance gives a more accurate figure than hit rate between 30% and 40%, chance being 25%, and, I think, is much easier to understand by children, layman and grunts like myself. Who is our audience? Only the special people? User:Kazuba 5 Sept 2006

Your edit didn't state "a hit rate of 13% above what would be expected by chance." The meaning of the wording you used was simply "a hit rate of 13%", which is incorrect. In any case, I don't see how the corrected version of your wording is any easier to understand than the original, and as you noted, it's also too specific. Several studies were being grouped together for these figures, and the results covered a range. KarlBunker 17:52, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

``` connected to nothing visible. Saw nothing visibily cited. (My reference is the only one listed). The figure depends on which collection of data you look at. I went by Utts and Hyman. What we have here is a failure to communicate. We don't talk the same way. It is probably my fault. I'm the grunt. I am terrible with words. Whatever....User Kazuba 5 Sept 2006

connected to nothing visible. That was partly my fault; I screwed up the notes when I deleted an old vandalism edit. It should be fixed now. KarlBunker 19:33, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Deleting unsourced claim

I'm deleting the POV-ish unsourced claim in the lead section. there is no Origional research allowed on the enyclopedia, so please do not revert my edit agian. -- Selmo 23:42, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for saying "please", but I'm afraid the answer to your polite request is "no"--I will not refrain from reverting your edit, because your edit is incorrect. If there were any well-supported, replicated experimental results that demonstrated telepathy to the satisfaction of the scientific community, that would be huge, huge news, and it would be common knowledge--on a level with there being widely-accepted evidence of visitation by aliens or whatnot. So it's a very safe, very correct statement to say that no such experimental results exist. KarlBunker 02:11, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

On reflection, I decided that the sentence in question should be changed so that it's even less arguable. It now says that "no positive result has ever resisted scrutiny to the satisfaction of skeptical scientists." KarlBunker 10:50, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I really dislike your bossy additude, Karl. I do not need your permission to edit this article. I'm glad you've at the very least, reworded your sentance. However, if you continue to deny the free edit of Misplaced Pages, I will be forced to take this to the ArbCom. -- Selmo 16:37, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I've read the source, and it just looks like an opinion peice. There's many reports that telepathy does exist. telephathy is real.com is an example. Now, in my personal opinion, telephathy should'nt be classified as a "physcic power". However, since there is no document to this that I can find, I will not add it to the article.

I will end this reply by warning you that if you revert the article agian, I will have to take the issue to ArbCom.

• It is absolutely impossible to disprove telepathy. The best that can ever be said is that it has not been proved. It can never be proved that something does not exist. If anyone tries to push an illogical opinion into this encyclopaedia article and engages in malicious editing or reversal, I will request assistance from administrators.

Thanks. -THB 16:33, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Selmo, at no point did I imply that you needed my permission to edit. And my "bossy attitude" seems to consist of me saying that I won't follow your instructions about what I can edit. If you go to the Arbitration Committee, they'll tell you that the way to settle edit disputes is to discuss the issues on the discussion page. I did that by explaining what I believe to be incorrect about your edit and your opinion. Your task at this point (if it's not to bossy of me to say this) is to explain to me what you think is wrong about my opinion. KarlBunker 00:20, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

By reverting my edits, and demanding a discussion about it, then say telling me that you will revert my edits anyway, it's as though your trying to control the article. I have already provided a resource talking about why it exists. -- Selmo 00:27, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I could have worded my response more politely, but you got things off to a poor start by say "please do not revert my edit again." That made it sound like you were claiming some kind of control over the article. The better way to open a discussion would be to say "please do not revert my edit again without discussing it here first." KarlBunker 01:02, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

THB, neither my edit nor anything else in the article said that it was a proven fact that telepathy doesn't exist. It said that some/most/skeptical scientists do not believe that telepathy has been validly demonstrated. There's a big difference. KarlBunker 00:20, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't make it true, though. Everything has to be factually accurate. Opinion is not fact. -- Selmo 00:27, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Saying that most/some/4-out-of-5/etc. scientists (or historians or whatever, depending on the topic) believe something is a verifiable fact, and is a relevant statement that is used in many, many articles. KarlBunker 01:02, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

You need to review Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines, especially the one on verifiability. CovenantD 00:37, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

But that's not what you said. Here's what you said:

"While there have been numerous scientific experiments into telepathy over the years, in the opinion of the scientific community, no positive result has ever resisted scrutiny. Positive results have been demonstrated to be the result of flawed methodology, statistically erroneous conclusions, or could simply not be replicated by independent researchers."

The big problems are with "in the opinion of the scientific community" and "no positive result has ever resisted scrutiny". The second statement cannot be proved and the first is a thinly-veiled statement of your own opinion.

Incidentally, the reference given to "debunk" telepath clearly states (on the first page!) that the majority of over 1,000 college professors from soft sciences and the humanities and arts surveyed believe in ESP or that it likely exists.

Please understand that I don't believe that telepathy is anything but fiction but that doesn't cause me to act inappropriately in my edits on Misplaced Pages. There seems to be a history of flouting Misplaced Pages policies in the process of imposing your own viewpoint, going so far as to repeatedly delete information you don't agree with, judging by your talk page, as well as difficulty respecting others. -THB 06:31, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

THB, I agree with you that "no positive result has ever resisted scrutiny" is a questionable and unsupported statement. I may have defended it at some point, but I wasn't the one that originally wrote it. The statement regarding the scientific community is entirely factual however, and not a "thinly veiled" anything. Unfortunately, surveys of the scientific community regarding the paranormal are rare and hard to find for citation purposes. (The survey of 1,000 college professors you mention doesn't fit the bill, of course.) Instead, the opinion of the scientific community is more apparent in things like the absence of research papers on paranormal topics in mainstream scientific journals, the absence of mainstream scientist's participation in conferences on the paranormal, and the like. It's hard to find a citation that documents "absences" like these, but they are quite well known to anyone who has done a little reading into science and the paranormal. The National Academies Press book that Wmahan mentions in his RFC comment below is a pretty good citation for indicating mainstream scientist's views on the subject. I'm looking for a better one, but if I can't find one and no one has any objection, I'll add it to the article. KarlBunker 14:59, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

KarlBunker, I'm not going to get dragged into a battle with you. (Notice that your defensive comments are getting longer and more tangled.) Whether or not you wrote it, you inserted or re-inserted it into the article. I agree with CovenantD's comments above regarding the need for you to review Misplaced Pages policies. -THB 16:03, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

A few comments in addition to what I posted below:

• Being willing to discuss disputes is the first step to resolving them. When it remains civil, discussion is not a battle.
• Mediation is a way of facilitating such diologue. Anyone looking to mediation as a way to "win" a dispute is likely to be disappointed.
• I get the impression that the two sides are not as far apart as it might appear, and a compromise can be reached if every effort is made to assume good faith. If it all possible, it's better to focus on content, not your opinions of other editors' behavior. Wmahan. 18:51, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I have reverted the recent changes by KarlBunker referring to telepathy as "a fringe science" until the mediation is resolved. Again, this statement is an opinion, even if KarlBunker gives a reference to someone else who said it. This continued behaviour is reprehensible. -THB 16:50, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry you think so, THB. It's my view that both you and User:Selmo don't fully understand how Misplaced Pages works. I've added my agreement to the call for mediation in hopes that a WP administrator can explain it to you more convincingly me than I can. KarlBunker 17:02, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

KarlBunker, your condescending attitude is unhelpful and rude. -THB 01:57, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

html comment in the article

I've removed the following hidden html comment from the article text:

Needs a section expanding on what it is, or at least claimed to be. Right now it's heavily POV against

There are a few problems with this: An html comment isn't the place for discussion of an article. If you think the content of the article needs changing, the place to discuss that is here, on the discussion page. That's where people are more likely to see the discussion and can add their own comments. Secondly, this comment isn't clear, and appears to contain two unrelated comments. Needs a section expanding on what what is? Telepathy? A very clear and simple definition is included in article; I don't see where it's lacking. Right now what is heavily POV against what? The article is POV against the existence of telepathy? If someone thinks that, the place to discuss that is again here in the discussion page, and the way to fix that is to add new content that's supported with references. KarlBunker 11:49, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Simply put, this article is lacking a vital section below the TOC. There needs to be a section explaining what telepathy is claimed to be. You look at the lead, it gives an introductory definition but nowhere in the body of the article is there anything that expands on that. And yes, an editors note is a perfectly valid place to leave a statement to that effect. CovenantD 20:06, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

If you want your opinion to be seen by few people and responded to by fewer, than yes, that's a good place to put it. KarlBunker 23:59, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I took the liberty of trying my hand at rewriting the intro. For one, I replaced a much simpler and I think clearer definition of telepathy. I also replaced the disputed statement with one that addresses the heart of the issue - reproducability. To date, no experiment demonstrating the existance of telepathy has been reliably replicable. If there were, then we wouldn't be having this debate. Telepathy would be an accepted phenomenon - even if it remained utterly mysterious. That's why the vast majority of the scientific community do not accept the existance of this or any other paranormal phenomena. These claims are not supported by findings that are reliably and independently replicable. Askolnick 19:51, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I also removed inaccurate statements, such as empathy being a paranormal phenomenon. Hardly. From empathy: "Telepathy is a controversial paranormal phenomenon, which differs in that empathy is based not upon the paranormal but upon sophisticated processing of what is seen and heard in the usual way." Askolnick 20:10, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Askolnick's edits, and they seem to bypass THB's objections, and perhaps Selmo's too. If not, please discuss your objections here. As Wmahan points out above, the purpose of mediation is only to facilitate discussion. If you aren't interested in discussing, a call for mediation isn't going to gain you anything. KarlBunker 21:09, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

The intro is a little more netural. My objection is about the exclusion of the evidence pointing to the direction that telepathy does extst. -- Selmo 23:53, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Selmo, there is NO evidence from any independently replicable experiments that shows "telepathy does exist." (Perhaps that's why you, without explanation, removed this important point.) If there were any evidence from reliably reproducible experiments, it would be added. It's the absence of such that makes telepathy and other paranormal claims the subject of fringe scientists, as well as pseudoscientists and charlatans. Your statement begs the question.

Compare the body of scientific research on telepathy with research on pheremones. Although the scientific study of pheremones is nearly a century younger than the study of telepathy, there's a huge body of scientific findings from reproducible experiments, which show how animals from ants to humans communicate with tiny amounts of biochemical signals. So, where's the evidence from replicable studies of telepathy and other paranormal claims? Was it all sucked down into the Bermuda triangle? No, such evidence does not exist. And we can't "exclude" what does not exist. Askolnick 19:48, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Responses to RfC

First and most importantly, I respectfully suggest that all editors keep in mind Misplaced Pages's policy of assuming good faith. Like many articles on Misplaced Pages, this topic can evoke strongly held beliefs and emotions from people with varying viewpoints. I think everyone can agree that the article should be as neutral and accurate as possible. I also advise everyone to avoid threatening to take things to administrators, ArbCom, or similar, at least until the other methods of dispute resolution have been exhausted.

It appears both sides in the "Deleting unsourced claim" debate have valid points. Asking that a disputed claim include a citation, as Selmo did, is a valid and important method of making sure that Misplaced Pages's articles are verifiable. KarlBunker wants to include the statement that "no positive result has ever resisted scrutiny to the satisfaction of skeptical scientists".

I would support the slightly stronger statement that mainstream scientists nearly universally reject the claimed evidence for telepathy. There is already a source in the article, and after briefly searching, the best additional source I could find was a 1988 report by the US National Research Council that "an evaluation of a large body of the best available evidence does not support the contention that these phenomena exist", referring to paranormal phenomena including telepathy (Druckman and Swet). I understand that some believers in telepathy dispute the report, but in my understanding they are not mainstream scientists.

I think it's important to note that the statement about scientists does not presume to say that the scientists are correct, or that believers in telepathy are wrong. Rather, I think it's a description that fits with Misplaced Pages's goal of providing neutral, verifiable information. Wmahan. 05:31, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Post page-protection discussion

It seems like the current edit conflicts are over fairly small differences. Selmo, you appear to object to the statement reproducibility is one of the principles of scientific method. Is that correct? Would you accept that statement if it were cited? KarlBunker 10:19, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually Karl, it is well-cited with a link to reproducibility which states: "Reproducibility is one of the main principles of the scientific method, and refers to the ability of a test or experiment to be accurately reproduced, or replicated."

It appears the reason that Selmo does not accept this factual statement is that he may not accept the scientific method. But that's a POV that has no place in this or any other article. The fact is that reproducibility IS one of the main principles of the scientific method. (And it's this main principle that pro-paranormal researchers can't seem to satisfy, although they've been working at it for more than a century. No field of any real science has ever been so totally barren for so very long. One hundred and twenty plus years of "research" yet NOT one replicable experiment? What better evidence is there that for many, their need to believe is much stronger than their need to know.)

Selmo, please do not remove well-sourced facts and opinions because they clash with your POV. Such conduct is never successful. It leads to edit wars and protected pages and nothing ever productive. Askolnick 12:08, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I removed the sentance about preproducibility being a key element in the scientrific process because everyone knows this. If they don't, they can click the link. Also, I don't need my intelligence insulted by making the sracastic remark "Would you accept that statement if it were cited?" -- Selmo 14:51, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I meant no insult and I was not being sarcastic, Selmo. Usually when an editor removes something from an article it's because they disagree with the statement they're removing, or they think it is insufficiently supported. I honestly don't understand why you would repeatedly remove something "because everyone knows this." Even if one agrees that the statement is something that "everyone knows," it's hard to see how its inclusion harms the article.

Obviously several editors disagree with you on whether that statement is too obvious to warrant inclusion, so will you now accept its inclusion? KarlBunker 15:16, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Please don't try to insult our intelligence, Selmo. Obviously, not everybody knows that reproducibility is one of the main principles of the scientific method. I wish that this were true, but so many believers in supernatural and pseudoscientific claims are ignorant of this important fact. And even if everybody knew, that's no reason to remove it, because it's the critical reason why the vast majority of scientists remain skeptical about the existance of telepathy and other woo-woo claims. Excuse me if I'm wrong about this, but you removed it to shift the article towards your own POV. That's unacceptable.

Also, Selmo, try not to look for insults where none exist. Karl was not being sarcastic when he asked you if you were objecting because the statement lacked a citation. You can't blame him for trying to understand why you, without giving any explanation, removed a truthful and relevant statement concerning the failure of more than a century of telepathy research to satisfy one of the most important requirements of modern science. Askolnick 19:16, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Askolnick, the statements KarlBunker inserted contained at least one patently absurd statement and at least one opinion. I removed or altered those edits just as Selmo did.

I don't believe that Selmo (or anyone else) disagrees with a "relevant and truthful statement" but only with one that contravenes logic and promotes opinion. KarlBunker also inserts words like "fringe science". I don't have a problem with the reproducibility as a foundation of science statement--that's pretty much what scientific evidence is--but you can't truthfully make the statement that ALL telepathy experiements have been investigated and found faulty because they haven't all been investigated and all of them may not be known at present. Also, look at some of the other paranormal articles--they don't contain the basic premises of scientific investigation.

KarlBunkers actions are part of a campaign to insert his own POV into the article rather than allowing it to be neutral and non-POV. In addition, his statements and actions have predisposed others to interpret his comments on his edits as hostile, sarcastic, condescending, and/or rude.

Personally, I doubt there is any scientific basis to telepathy, but at one time the idea of the planet being spherical instead of flat was doubtful and led to people being put to death for heresy. That belief lasted a lot longer than the belief that telepathy does not exist has.

This would indicate the need to remain neutral and objective--as much a hallmark of science as is reproduceability. -THB 19:53, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Here's a statment from this page regarding KarlBunker's opinion on placing statments in articles if they are "obvious" to him:

The notion of telepathy as being analogous to radio transmission isn't mentioned in the article because it's too obvious to warrant mention. With some latitude, it is the only way of (semi-)realistically viewing telepathy. Even it a work of fiction protrays telepathy as magic, the operation of it is still analogous to radio transmission. KarlBunker 15:37, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

-THB 20:30, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

THB, Do you have any comments about the current content of the article? KarlBunker 22:31, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

KarlBunker, Do you have any comments that are not sarcastic? -THB 23:44, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics