Talk:Precognition/Archive 4: Difference between revisions

< Talk:Precognition Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Latest revision as of 15:25, 24 December 2024 edit Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,293,709 edits Archiving 7 discussion(s) from Talk:Precognition) (bot

(No difference)

Latest revision as of 15:25, 24 December 2024

This is an archive of past discussions about Precognition. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Updating

Hello, I have made a few edits to start to bring this page up-to-date, especially with reference to recent thinking in quantum mechanics. Please review. Thelisteninghand (talk) 18:08, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Are you aware of WP:COI policy at Misplaced Pages and are you in any way related to Wago? jps (talk) 20:45, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

jps Thanks. Yes of course and no. Why have my edits been reverted with no comment here? To explain, some may call precognition a "psychic" ability but the wikified link is not using that word as an adjective. It is saying that people who experience precognition are psychics - noun. As, for example, JW Dunne is the author of widely cited work on the subject and does not call himself a 'psychic' the term is misused in this context. Thelisteninghand (talk) 15:13, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Whether someone self-describes as a psychic or not is hardly our concern. The general umbrella term for people who claim abilities that defy physics is paranormal, but in the context of "seeing the future", this is the purview of psychics. Some who claim this ability may not appreciate being lumped with fortune tellers, palm readers, tarot card aficionados and the like, but all the reliable sources which discuss precognition identify it as part and parcel to claimed "psychic" abilities. Until there is a reliable demarcation provided, this is as good as any other word we may choose to use and it is in line with the sources we have in our article. jps (talk) 17:45, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Indeed, Dunne would have been most annoyed to be described as a psychic, as if it was something out of the ordinary; he believed that he was perfectly normal in this respect. The modern psi/paranormal/ESP terminology came only later with the Rhines, largely because they also disliked the connotations of existing terms such as "psychic". But some writers happily kept the old habit of describing precognition as a psychic ability. There has never been a fully agreed terminology, it has always been fluid with different writers defining their terms in different ways. For Misplaced Pages, as long as the gist of the sentence is clear in any given instance, and usage within a given article not inconsistent, that is all we can hope for. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:21, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, I've returned only to say that Britannica avoids the term. It is a loaded word in my view, emphasised in conjunction with the word 'seeing'. 'supernormal knowledge' is neutral language. Thelisteninghand (talk) 20:41, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Britannica does not seem to be interested in really documenting this idea in a serious fashion according to the popular notions either. I am not sure why you think psychic is a loaded term. It was initially coined by Flammarion to try to provide an empirical basis for his beliefs in the amazing abilities of the mind to do these very things. I think we may be a bit on the euphemism cycle whereby a new word is adopted to avoid old problems only to find this word suffering from a similar taboo due to the old problems persisting or being reapplied. I don't think that we need to take Dunne's feelings (as we see them) into account when writing this article. Our goal is to describe things plainly and as understandably as possible. jps (talk) 05:15, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. If our goal is 'to describe things as plainly and as understandably as possible' then the word 'psychic' is entirely misleading, not least because it is wikified. (there's a grammatical error there also) Reading that page, the term is used to describe 'professionals' the list including famous 'clairvoyants'. Priority in the lede is given to psychokinesis and apportation not precognition. The image that appears when you hover is a shop. Something I think is remarkable about that page is that it mentions dreaming not once. I acknowledge this article is titled 'precognition' not 'precognitive dreams' but at the present time I am certain that the majority, including sceptics, would agree that the phenomenon is commonly reported by ordinary people with no claim to 'psychic' powers. WP is making a partly false or misleading assertion.

I had replaced the word 'see' with 'perceive' now reverted. 'Precognition' is defined by its word root, translating 'cognito' to 'seeing' is WP:SYNTH - the reason I deleted it. Thelisteninghand (talk) 15:17, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

The word "see" is often used in the cognitive sense, as in "I see what you mean". English is not a pedant's playground, it is a working language and we take it as we find it. This was a lesson the Victorians tried to bury, but ultimately failed. I see (sic) little hope of burying it here, either. The phrase "flogging a dead horse" is beginning to come to mind. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:48, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't see any sources which claim that those who think their dreams portend the future have "no claim to 'psychic' powers". Indeed, as most skeptics doubt that "psychic powers" exist, it is not outrageous to say that people who believe in their own ability to dream the future have just as much a claim to "psychic powers" as any other claimant. jps (talk)`

Sources do indeed exist. Dunne was adamant that his theory of precognition was a scientific one and that no special psychic woo was involved. For example The Serial Universe extensively discusses Relativity and QM as then understood. His final written notes on his theory, published posthumously as an Appendix to Intrusions?, set out his mathematical reconciliation of it with Special Relativity (that analysis may not be tenable, but he certainly believed and claimed that it was). The sceptics differ from him only in denying that any precognitive mechanism can be a plausible explanation for the events which he and others have recorded. There was some discussion published in Nature by adherents of the various positions. There is no doubt that the term "psychic" has carried those connotations of extra-physical "powers" for so long that your "not outrageous" interpretation is at least questionable. However, since the sceptical view occupies the scientific mainstream in matters of reality (though not necessarily the literary mainstream in matters of culture, if I might clarify with reference to another discussion), there is little point in losing sleep here over such niceties. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 07:14, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

The problem with this analysis is the assumption you made that "psychic powers" is "woo". While skeptics, I'm sure, agree wholeheartedly with that analysis, there isn't any independent source I know of that tries to demarcate between Dunne and the other arguments. Arguing that Dunne in his Appendix provides a text that allows us to make this distinction requires a level of original interpretation that we have no way of accessing at Misplaced Pages. In short, I see no source that shows how this belief can be separated from those held by the storefront psychics down the street. jps (talk) 16:07, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

There is plenty of RS out there to make the distinction, but this exchange is not aimed at improving the article. If you really want a reading list, you can always contact me off-wiki. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:01, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

You admit all through this talkpage that Dunne's approach is marginalized by skeptics and scientists. I haven't seen any explanation of how this marginalization should be considered to be any different than other marginalizations of people making similar claims. But, fair enough if you think this won't help, I'm happy to drop it. jps (talk) 18:46, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Alternatively, you could explain why you think that, assuming I can cite sources, it would lead to a better article. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:56, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Not sure what you're asking here. I do not distinguish between different pseudoscientific approaches, but I have noticed that fans of some pseudoscience tend to disdain being grouped with other pseudosciences. jps (talk) 19:06, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

I am asking if you have ideas to improve the article. Judging by that last little speech, I take it that you have not. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 22:23, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Here's an idea: "Because OR (and ORCH OR) phenomena are fundamentally non-local, the coherent superposition phase may exhibit puzzling bi-directional time-flow prior to self-collapse.(....) We equate the pre-collapse quantum computing superposition to pre-conscious processing. This could explain the puzzling "backwards time referral" aspects of pre-conscious processing observed by Libet et al (1979)." https://bigbangpage.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/orchestrated-objective-reduction-in-microtubuls...pdf Is that citable for 'violation of natural law'? Thelisteninghand (talk) 22:02, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Further citations re. quantum processes and macro phenomena are here photosynthesis see 'efficiency'. I'm suggesting the dismissal of quantum processes in this article because they 'cannot carry information at a macroscopic level' is incorrect. Thelisteninghand (talk) 17:20, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

The Copenhagen interpretation with its wavefunction collapse is not "natural law".

Please stop your WP:OR and WP:FORUM. This page is about improving the article Precognition by using reliable sources talking about precognition, not about photosynthesis or other stuff. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:33, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Fully appreciate your point, please note I am NOT editing and the talk section is the correct place for suggestions for improvement which this article requires to become 'good'. Therefore research is called for and I fully realise the governance provided by WP:OR for articles. To address your point, the Copenhagen interpretation is not what is proposed by Hameroff/Penrose, it challenges it. In respect of WP:FORUM I am sticking to my point about one sentence which appears from many views to be incorrect, as argued above. Macro phenomena DO arise from quantum processes in photosynthesis, so the generalised statement that they do not is at the very least contentious. We might indicate this? Thelisteninghand (talk) 15:33, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Quantum effects have a lot of macro consequences: lasers, radioactivity, chemistry, and so on. But that is not what the article says. It says, "quantum weirdness", even if it is shown to exist, cannot carry information at a macroscopic level. That refers to something like this, something astrology-like (as above, so below - here, as midro, so macro).

Macro consequences of micro effects have no connection to the subject of the article, and we should not mention any of them. The "weirdness" quote should be sourced, yes. Probably reworded. But it should not be replaced by something that says the opposite. The Hameroff-Penrose paper, published in one of many weirdo-subculture journals, is not a useable source. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:08, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm in general agreement that "quantum weirdness" is the wrong term and your link clarifies that - no doubt why it was used in quote-marks. Macro consequences of quantum effects is part of this article - the only reason the subject is under discussion and why the statement in the article must be correct. 'Quantum Weirdness' is not a proper term and in any case is not what is being proposed in the citation so the 'even if it shown to exist' is redundant. The Hameroff/Penrose model is published in a great many reputable publications: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/17588928.2020.1839037 https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsta.1998.0254 https://www.newscientist.com/article/2288228-can-quantum-effects-in-the-brain-explain-consciousness/ and many many more. Quantum processes are very much part of the present discussion in precognition and we should reflect this. Thelisteninghand (talk) 17:16, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

I certainly know of no reliable sources discussing the application to precognition, of reappraising macroscopic consequences of quantum-level phenomena. The article on retrocausality is reasonably well sourced, but as far as I am aware that discussion has to stop there. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:33, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

You are right, but I am not certain that it needs to. The examples I provided are illustrations of the current debate on quantum processes in consciousness to support my argument that the sentence I am concerned with should be updated. Perhaps it could read "However the application of such principles to precognition is a matter of current scientific debate." The current sentence is WP drawing its own conclusion I would say.Thelisteninghand (talk) 21:27, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

But it is not a matter of current scientific debate. There are people who think like "I don't understand precognition, and I don't understand quantum, so maybe they are connected - otherwise there would be two things I do not understand, and I like I-do-not-understand-only-one-thing better", but what those people say is not a scientific debate. There will be no such sentence in the article without multiple top-quality sources. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:57, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

I'll leave the unsourced sentence then. This is purely about WP making its own assertions. Psychology, neuroscience all discuss the issue (quantum processes in mind) as I have shown. My last offering then, it should read "However, whether quantum processes operate in human experience/consciousness is the matter of current scientific debate" Thanks everyone. Thelisteninghand (talk) 18:34, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

With multiple top-quality sources, yes. Without, no. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:39, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4706048/Thelisteninghand (talk) 19:35, 20 January 2022 (UTC) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8205007/ WP should acknowledge the discussion.Thelisteninghand (talk) 19:46, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

The first one is by Daryl Bem, one of a very few well-known living parapsychologists, who has been promoting silly ideas for decades, including bad meta-analyses. Of course he will write stuff like that - but why in F1000Research, a journal specialized in life sciences, which do not include psychology? Daryl Bem#"Feeling the Future" controversy discusses exactly this, and there is heavy criticism of the methodology. Bem is quoted as saying, "I’m all for rigor, but I prefer other people do it" - which disqualifies him immediately. This is not a top-quality source by any reasonable standard. And it does not even mention the word "consciousness", so it is not even a source for your claim.

The second is a primary source. Forget it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 20:05, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

I do think that there should be some reference to retrocausality in the article: our article on retrocausality does mention precognition, and an Internet search on precognition and retrocausality brings up an awful lot of published discussions. Perhaps there is something reliable out there to support a mention, insofar as it is a current topic of discussion among parapsychologists? (Not that a cursory glance has revealed anything significant to me, and I strongly support the view that there is little if anything worth detailing within those discussions). — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:59, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

As I was trying to show, there is not only discussion but quite possibly what we'd term 'heated debate'. It reaches as far as the tabloid press. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-6726143/Scientist-says-future-dreams.html Thelisteninghand (talk) 16:47, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

And that's the problem: the Daily Mail is about as unreliable as published sources get, what we need is reliable sources. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:14, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, but I am only showing that there is public debate, the Mail is a perfect source for that. That is the problem with this article, we're trying to squeeze everything into the wrong headings, and I am not interested in proving anything - does it need to be peer reviewed science every time? We state in the lead it's pseudoscience and again under Scientific Criticism. To get this article to 'good' I'd propose either a new heading or to write more under "Cultural Impact" to include what can be called the 'populist' literature which is so conspicuously absent. It is ridiculous that an encyclopedia entry portrays nothing of the clamour around this subject.

The Bem article is a revision from 2015 - an update to what's here. Thelisteninghand (talk) 17:02, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

The heading 'Violation of Natural Law' is bizarre to me. I don't know what 'natural law' means. It appears to refer to classical physics, if so that should be made clear. The jury is out on whether the second law of thermodynamics operates on dreams. But the classical view really must be shown to be at odds with the quantum mechanical view if we are to be thorough, so let's put retrocausality under 'see also'. My attempts at more neutral language have been reverted. I thought I had used actually more precise language also. Precognition is reported by 'some people including those who claim to be psychic' is accurate. The lead is now uncited. We need consensus to improve this article. Thelisteninghand (talk) 19:33, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Natural Law is a thing. I've edited the heading to make sense of it.Thelisteninghand (talk) 20:38, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

I found this very good summary from 2014 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4141237/ which is good to cite I think but having trouble using the template.Thelisteninghand (talk) 22:29, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Nice find. I never worry about the details of citation formatting. Just bung down something like the following and let some relentless bot or other sort it out as it sees fit:

<ref>Michael S. Franklin, Stephen L. Baumgart and Jonathan W. Schooler; "Future directions in precognition research: more research can bridge the gap between skeptics and proponents", ''Frontiers in Psychology'', 2014; 5: 907. PMCID: PMC4141237.

— Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:11, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Which has led me to: Bohm, D. (1986). "A new theory of mind and matter". Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research, 80, 113–135. Probably not suitable to reference here, but Bohm was a famous and respected physicist who proposed a somewhat mystical "implicate order" underlying quantum weirdness, so we might be able to find some comment on it by secondary RS. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:48, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

There's this https://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/20/7/493/htm which begs a much bigger question. We have to deal with physics as classical physics has been cited as reasons for the pseudoscience claims. I've updated that section with the above ncbi reference. The article, I think, should avoid any lengthy discussion of ideas about mind but not avoid it altogether. Bohm and Penrose are leading figures but referencing the controversy (which never mentions precognition) needs some groundwork, some QM scene-setting. Chewy. Thelisteninghand (talk) 17:03, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

A statistical meta-analysis of Bem's experiments and their replications was published yesterday https://psi-encyclopedia.spr.ac.uk/articles/feeling-future-precognition-experiments Long established psi publication with a very well qualified author. I'd like to cite it to show that Bem's results are 'controversial' and the subject is far from concluded as the section that deals with it suggests. Probably get shot down in flames for suggesting a psi subject might cite a psi source. However, this is an article about statistics. (the conclusion would be quoted) Thelisteninghand (talk) 15:58, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Professor Roe is the current President of the SPR, the organisation which publishes the Psi Encyclopedia. Members of that organisation may believe and say what they will. Thank you for drawing attention to his article there. He himself is also the subject of a biopic there. It lists four contributions to the encyclopedia from him, all of which are broadly sympathetic to the psi hypothesis; in the paper you cite, he gives weight to his conclusion that "The more recent meta-analysis claims that effects can be replicated statistically". (What I find intriguing is that, like James Randi, he is a time-served stage magician and illusionist, yet the two old entertainers' attitudes to psi research could hardly be more different). WP:NPOV not withstanding, you will be lucky to get anything he says cited here as anything other than a cultural phenomenon, so if you do wish to add anything about Bem and see if it sticks, I'd suggest you try putting it in that section. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:52, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, I put it under 21st Century with the rest of the Bem citations for now and provided update without citing Bem's actual 2015 revision. Previously it said the controversy 'continued until 2012'. If I move it to 'cultural..' can I put 'see cultural..' under the 21st C section? A statistical meta-analysis is not what I would normally think of as 'culture'. Yes it may present WP:NPOV problem but was also a problem the way it read before, more neutral now I think. Didn't know Roe was a magician! Cheers Thelisteninghand (talk) 18:15, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Some (especially sceptics who click through and read it) might question why the independent review needs to be mentioned. Now it's there I'd be inclined to leave it and see if it sticks. If it doesn't, that is the time to compose a cultural remark. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:40, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, yes I'm not entirely happy with it. My thoughts are towards an expansion of 'Cultural Impact'. It should be a much larger section. This is really the right heading for dealing with the particular impact of quantum physics, 'quantum biology' and all of the populist literature that has mushroomed - since Bem especially. If anything has 'cultural Impact' it's QM. Penrose/Hameroff should be here but there is other serious 'quantum mind' research (notwithstanding what I said about theories of mind being slightly off-topic). This example from 2020, good paper for quantum process in nature but 'off topic' or is it? Probably primary source though. https://www.nature.com/articles/s42005-020-00396-0?gclid=EAIaIQobChMIn6CA8O7S9QIVH4BQBh37xwGoEAMYASAAEgLtvfD_BwE Would 'Continuing controversy' or 'Speculation' be a suitable and proper subheading? Thelisteninghand (talk) 21:45, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Primary sources are seldom useful in establishing cultural significance (only if the source itself has gained some notoriety, over and above its subject matter). Similarly, speculation needs secondary/tertiary RS which establish the cultural impact of that speculation. Quantum theories of mind are indeed off-topic here, unless the sources explicitly discuss precognition and meet the above criteria. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:14, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll find sources I'm sure. Thelisteninghand (talk) 16:08, 28 January 2022 (UTC) Put under 'popular belief' - I think cites are good.Thelisteninghand (talk) 18:06, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

21st Century

This section only deals with Bem. Under 'late 20thC' we have an entry about Priestly for 2014. Re-jigging and more required.Thelisteninghand (talk) 17:47, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Spufford was commenting on Priestley's study of the late 20th century, he was not offering anything new. So it belongs with Priestley. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:07, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. I've put physicist, Prof Brian Josephson under 'popular belief' because he's 'fringe'. That's 'fringe' with a Nobel Prize like Roger Penrose. He is extremely relevant if this article is to deal with the subject of science and the paranormal. The Royal Mail stamp controversy opened the debate publicly at the beginning of the 21st Century. https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2001/sep/30/robinmckie.theobserver However, it's covered in his biog so wouldn't go here. Having difficulty sourcing criticism. Don't think this counts: https://www.quackometer.net/blog/2010/10/john-benneth-brian-josephson-and-an-absurd-talk-at-cambridge.html Thelisteninghand (talk) 21:02, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Thelisteninghand I had a look through some of your edits, sorry but they are some of the worst I have seen on here, you are promoting pseudoscientists and crackpots like Deepak Chopra and Brian Josephson. Misplaced Pages is not the place to promote pseudoscience. Psychologist Guy (talk) 02:20, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

If only people would get the idea out of their heads that Nobelists are some sort of scientific Popes...

They are just people who had one good idea in one specific area. In general, they are not smarter, not more knowledgeable and not more competent than other scientists, just more famous. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:28, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Agree. While some of Thelisteninghand edits were acceptable improvements, there were many others that were pushing equal validity for fringe viewpoints. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:42, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. OK I'll pause. I'm pleased (emotion notwithstanding) that my efforts to improve are noted. I think an RFC is in order. 2.103.32.155 (talk) 16:24, 31 January 2022 (UTC)Thelisteninghand (talk) 16:25, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Editing Errors

Please be careful and read what you revert. I've just reverted the recent edit to the title of the painting. Thelisteninghand (talk) 16:41, 31 January 2022 (UTC) I see Christianity and Buddhism have been removed from Precognition in religion. You may improve the references, simply deleting them may be seen as prejudice. I'm moving to RfC Thelisteninghand (talk) 16:49, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Historical and cultural significance

The recent mass revert helps to illustrates why I believe that we should approach parapsychology topics like this one as historical and cultural phenomena rather than pseudo/scientific debates. A parallel example of this principle is the way we present the various conflicting dogmas and mythologies of the world's religions (not that I am suggesting parapsychology is a religion!). The huge amount of literature on the subject, which continues to appear, gains sufficient comment to merit notability. Where RS can establish sufficient significance for a work or investigator, that deserves to be covered.

I should like to see the section on cultural significance expanded, which inevitably would require much reference to proponents of the phenomenon without judging their beliefs, just as the article on say Christianity refers to lots of Christians, who believed - and often still believe - many unscientific things. The trick is not to present them as pseudo/scientific advocates, any more than we present prophets or churchmen as such, but rather to document the history and development of the field.

Obviously, the scientific criticism and pseudoscientific status are a key part of that story (more so than with, say, most religions), and it and its dogs of war must therefore be given adequate prominence here. But it is absurd to build an entire article under the constant disclaimer that it is talking rubbish, or to censor significant investigators, who are notable enough for their own biographies here, when they are the specific targets of those dogs: after all, we do need to be able to verify what those dogs are pulling down.

I tend to find that the real woo-merchants soon decide that I am a diehard sceptic in sneaky disguise, and I have seen more than one such editor off this encyclopedia. I also find that the diehard sceptics likewise assume I am a woo merchant in sneaky disguise. So I like to think that my approach, as offered here, is closer to NPOV than some editors. But I don't want to waste hours of my time here, only to be mass-reverted because there is no consensus for the approach. So the question is, is it a viable approach to parapsychology articles such as this one?

— Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:08, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. You state the reason why I was placing almost everything under that heading. We should properly document the cultural impact but that cannot be done if we cannot cite, or refer to 'beliefs'. If we rest on the "science" it will always be a short article that will never become 'good'. I use 'science' in quotes as recent reversions have completely scrambled any notion of scientific criticism - back to 'utter nonsense'. If science is cited (as reason for precognition not to exist) it must be correct. Classical physics is repeatedly used, modern physics is ignored in a way I call censorship. Nowhere does this article mention time - I would say a necessary requirement, but I could be accused of OR. So, the question you pose is the right one - the restrictions amount to a kind of 'Catch 22' and prevent proper exposition of the subject. I have plenty of time to waste here and will. I'll go to dispute resolution or RfC (which?)- the article has been reverted to ignorance and the ridiculous.Thelisteninghand (talk) 18:16, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Science does not necessarily need to be "correct" (many scientists say that it is never more than a working guide) but, in general, it does need to be consensual. Misplaced Pages takes (or aspires to take, ahem) much the same view. If I may say so, I held back from editing during your session because I knew the revert was going to happen; you moved too fast and too radically for our community to absorb and judge the individual edits, and some edits such as deleting sceptical sources were, to put it kindly, red rags to a bull. I'd suggest that you take it much slower, make only a few changes each day and if anything you want to do is clearly controversial then discuss its details here first.

Meanwhile I found a couple of intriguing sources in my historical slushpile:

Antony Flew; A New Approach to Psychical Research, Watts, 1953. Flew was a highly respected philosopher, logician and broadcaster; reliable sources do not come much better than this popular exposition. His book is an astutely critical but even-handed overview of the field to date, taking no prisoners on either side. He notes that the emergence of psychic phenomena in the brain is no less arguable than that of consciousness; the problem is to do good science to find out. Roe's current work, alluded to in an earlier discussion, echoes the typical sceptic's lack of rigour and the need for even-handedness. Both make sufficient reference to precognition to be useful here.
Arthur W. Osborn; The Future is Now: The Significance of Precognition, The Theosophical Publishing House, 2nd Imp. 1964. Osborne was something of a mystic and took precognition for granted. It carries an Introduction by Eileen J. Garrett, President of the Parapsychology Foundation. Besides being bang on the nose for topical relevance, the study contains some useful summaries of various ideas within the development of the discipline, and its endorsement by two major societies of the day helps establish their notability. It is thus a useful secondary or tertiary source to cite, though Osborn is (as far as I know) not otherwise significant. At least he can be used to explain what the sceptics are aiming at.

Both also contain some excellent quotes which illustrate various aspects of the field, I'll have to try and introduce them. It is important not to bring up any scientific aspect in all this, or it will certainly fall foul of WP:FRINGE (just as discussing the scientific aspect of, say, Christian resurrection would be out of place). WP:Fringe may only be a guideline and not a policy, but it does enforce a necessary discipline on us. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 21:07, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. A constructive approach to this article is exactly what is needed. Do feel free to intervene - I knew this was coming also, I've been here before! The talk page is vital to the way I proceed and I am in it for the long-haul. As for 'correct' science - yes it's another vague consensus. (science is actually in total crisis right now) The nonsense I am referring to (see below) is calling telepathy a scientific mechanism. Thoughts? Ha ha ha! I understand your point about fringe science but I do not take that easily. It's WP's self-made problem and the points we discussed before need fighting over at policy level. You have it when you said "we do need to be able to verify what those dogs are pulling down.." that's the built-in bias in this article. Notable author's should not be banned simply because they are sympathetic. It would make a case for not having an article on precognition at all - as you intimate. Thelisteninghand (talk) 17:13, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Quantum Leaps in the Wrong Direction

Quantum Leaps in the Wrong Direction is a scientific skeptic book but was being misused on the article. This line was added onto the article (I have not checked which user added it yet) "There is no known scientific mechanism which would allow precognition. It appears to require either action-at-a-distance or telepathic effects". The latter is quite deceptive because the claim of "telepathic effects" is not supported by the source but even the first part should be considered original research because the page number given does not mention precognition it seems to be talking about psychokinesis. In the book Quantum Leaps in the Wrong Direction it says on p. 165 "One of the reasons scientists have difficulty believing that psi effects are real is that there is no known mechanism by which they could occur. PK action-at-a-distance would presumably employ an action-at-a-distance force that is as yet unknown to science... Similarly, there is no known sense (stimulation and receptor) by which thoughts could travel from one person to another by which the mind could project itself elsewhere in the present, future, or past." There is no mention of precognition and the claim or "telepathic effects" is false. It appears someone has been adding in original research to the article, I would be interested in knowing who added the "telepathic effects" claim because it seems to have remained on the article for a few years. It makes the authors of this book sound like idiots when they are not, so whoever added this bit was probably trying to discredit the source. This is what happens when references are not properly checked. Psychologist Guy (talk) 17:55, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes. Perhaps you can understand why, when I came across the article I frowned and edited. This page was an embarrassment, I was bold, it has led to improvements. I am grateful.Thelisteninghand (talk) 18:09, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

I meant to add this "Information passing backwards in time would need to be carried by physical particles doing the same." More nonsense I think which I had deleted. It appears to be a veiled reference to Tachyons and has no place in this article. Information passing backwards in time is now T-symmetry. Not citable so why is the archaic version cited? Thelisteninghand (talk) 18:19, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

It is believed to be correct. Nonlocal quantum phenomena alone have never been found to carry information at the macroscopic level, and there are various theorems (i.e. unarguable mathematical truths) about why not. The only known way to achieve that is to send an actual particle over. You are right that, at this level of physics, precognition implies tachyons, which we believe do not exist. But the grammar of the statement is such that that does not invalidate it, it invalidates precognition. T-symmetry is not an inviolable law. It is violated by some quantum interactions, and by the thermodynamic law that entropy never decreases. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:00, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks again. We mustn't get bogged down but I don't think you are right. Post-selection data are macro phenomena. (or else we wouldn't know about it..) I'll stop there. I'm arguing the statement is the wrong type of reasoning/evidence as it is referring to tachyons. The reader will likely know that such a theory has been debunked long ago or just be confused. I'll try to check the source and I'd welcome any further views on this.Thelisteninghand (talk) 21:04, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Source unavailable. NB it's J Taylor again.Thelisteninghand (talk) 21:17, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

The lead

The lead needs tidying up. To deal with the nomenclature problem I wonder if ALL terms might be listed that indicate 'senses' before 'event' in the broadest terms. Also that these terms are not referred to as synonymous ie NOT 'also called x' but 'which may include x'. Or is that too vague? The list should include the words which cause re-directs to this article, or those words should be removed from the tag.

The last line refers to 'discussion within the parapsychology community'. The discussion goes further than that, as the citations in the article indicate. Thelisteninghand (talk) 20:31, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Just read the peer review of this article. Worth a look - 2007! I'm hoping it can be resubmitted for 'good' status (at least). Thelisteninghand (talk) 20:51, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

The revert to 'see' the future, is unhelpful to explain the phenomenon to the reader. The deletion of other academic disciplines, especially philosophy, involved in discussions is unhelpful to the reader. The current statement is too narrow. Comments welcome. Thelisteninghand (talk) 21:25, 1 February 2022 (UTC)