Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 05:13, 23 June 2008

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Remote viewing article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5Auto-archiving period: 3 months

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

RfC for pseudoscience infobox

Archived on Talk:Remote_viewing/pseudoscience infobox rfc. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:49, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Copyedit lead

I copy edited the lead for syntax and grammar before noting the discussion. I don't believe the edits change the information, but if they do, changes that are syntactically accurate are fine with me (olive (talk) 22:48, 5 May 2008 (UTC))

Oops. I guess what I'm saying is I had not intention of compounding problems in the discussion.... just wanted to make what is there more easily readable.(olive (talk) 22:51, 5 May 2008 (UTC))la

• Yes, there was a significant change in meaning, in that the first paragraph slipped back into pretending it is real. I qualified it. Guy (Help!) 08:22, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Until discussion on info box can be completed

Archived on Talk:Remote_viewing/pseudoscience infobox rfc. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:49, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

automatic archival by MiszaBot

I have added a template so that MiszaBot archives threads that have had no replies for 180 days. Is that time enough or should I tell it to leave the threads more time on the page? (that's about 6 months, so the threads where the oldest comment is from 20 November 2007 like "Purpoted" will get archived on a few days at most if nobody comments there) --Enric Naval (talk) 15:03, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

If the bot is even working, and I'm not too sure it is, that's way too long. I have trouble loading stuff, as it takes me 100 seconds to load a 200 kb page. How about 30 days? ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 21:36, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

The bot may take weeks to start working. I removed all old threads, but there are still 170 KB left. I'll have to archive recent threads that are not longer discussed instead of waiting until they are 90 days old (maybe tomorrow) --Enric Naval (talk) 05:26, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Lancet article

A few years ago Lommel P. Van published in the Lancet on near-death experiences. Subjects reported seeing objects that they reportedly could not have seen. Anyone know how to find his text?  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 01:02, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Send me an email and I'll send you the .pdf file of the original study, or maybe you can get it here (; ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 01:50, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Recent edits

Please do not edit war material into this article. Discuss it first. ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 01:31, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

yes, and please try to maintain a neutral tone in the article. --Ludwigs2 02:05, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with your plea for WP:NPOV, but I am surprised that you reverted away from this version which surely adheres closer to the NPOV-sense than the one you reverted to! ScienceApologist (talk) 19:17, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Obviously, he doesn't think so. Please refer to other discussions above and the archives of this talk page. Issue has been thoroughly discussed. I will try and look up the ArbCom decision where it says editors are not obligated to repeat arguments over and over if they have already been thoroughly explained. In the meantime, I'll just say you have to source and attribute broad disputed claims. ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 19:36, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

And please do not claim in edit summaries that nothing has been said on the talk without checking the talk page first. ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 19:39, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

This edit has not been discussed on this page nor in the archives. You are being disruptive and are in violation of your probation. You are also maligning my character which is a violation of no personal attacks and civility regulations. In short, your comment is entirely unhelpful and unworthy of consideration as adding anything meaningful to the discussion. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:41, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing in this discussion which is not useful, and I see no personal attacks just requests to follow a progressive discussion on major edits. Such an perspective might allow for smoother editing practices.(olive (talk) 20:34, 10 June 2008 (UTC))

and if there are massive changes being made which other editors object too, the appropriate method of proceeding would be to discuss and reach agreement... that would seem to be the most civil step to take, whatever personal opinions are, and would improve the collaborative environment here.(olive (talk) 20:47, 10 June 2008 (UTC))

Acting as a shill for Martinphi's disruption is unacceptable. We can have a discussion, but making unfounded accusations such as that I did not " the talk page first" is an attempt to derail the discussion into personal invectives. It in no way moves the article towards a more reliable, verifiable, and neutral state. I will not tolerate this level of disruption. There are no "massive changes", as you would have it, and moreover your adoption of wording is needlessly emotive and fails to shed any light on this conversation. In short, your attempt to act as referee has not only failed, you have succeeding in making things worse. As far as I'm concerned there is nothing more that can be said here that will not further aggravate the situation of an article being dominated by fringe proponents who seem to be content to drag their feet and refuse to make substantive critique of legitimate edits that are reliably sourced and conform to the mainstream academic understanding of the subject. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:09, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I have no interest in acting as a referee. I am however an onlooker, and since I have copy edited this article, although I am not knowledgeable in this area, I did want to comment. Emotive seems pretty far fetched given the tone of my post, and given that you took my comments to referee material, however poor, and no I'm no meatpuppet ... MartinPhi didn't ask me to comment here. I will reiterate my own opinion, and that is, I don't see disruptive behaviour, and I will say that anywhere, in any environment. That is my opinion having watched this discussion. I do believe there are ways of moving a discussion forward if the editors can agree to discuss and come to an agreement, and that is what I commented on. I am not commenting on the edits and I am no fringe editor. That's up to the two editors who seem to be involved in this point. I an commenting however, on the accusations that do not seem to help aid in the ongoing progress of this article. As an editor that's what I 'm saying, that's what I have the right to say, and that's what I believe. The rest is up to you and the other editors involved.(olive (talk) 23:02, 10 June 2008 (UTC))

Thanks olive, yes, I agree we need to 1) discuss changes first and 2) come to a consensus before inserting material. As noted above, there was no consensus for the edits, the principles of them have been discusses and rejected before, and other editors objected. ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 21:43, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

There is no policy that demands we do 1), and further you have not discussed the edit at all. False claims of consensus either in the affirmative or the negative are simply disruptive. You are consistently flouting your restrictions. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:09, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Please get consensus on this controversial article before inserting controversial edits. If your edit are reverted, please do not edit war them back into the article. ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 23:17, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

seems I've missed a good part of this discussion. well, let me just say this: I have been opposing the current lead in the article because of words like 'pseudoscientific' and 'anecedotal', and the particular way used of constructing phrases so as to impose a negative impression. the fact that the scientific community "accepts none of the alleged instances" (compare with the more neutral 'no claims of remote viewing have been accepted' - the latter is a historical fact; the first implies a firm position) is not grounds for using wikipedia to try and debunk remote viewing. not that I believe in remote viewing, mind you, but I do believe you should allow every idea to put its best foot forward, so that people can evaluate it for themselves. --Ludwigs2 00:27, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

There are still major problems with the lead, like you say. For example, critics only found some minor potential for sensory leakage not "that clues inadvertently revealed by researchers explain how purported remote viewers can obtain information on remote viewing locations." We could work on a better version if you like. You going to be around?

It's correct in the crit section, however: "According to Dr. David Marks in experiments conducted in the 1970s at the Stanford Research Institute, the notes given to the judges contained clues as to which order they were carried out, such as referring to yesterday's two targets, or they had the date of the session written at the top of the page. Dr. Marks concluded that these clues were the reason for the experiment's high hit rates."

I don't see the phrase you mention in the article, where you say "accepts none of the alleged instances". ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 00:56, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll be in and out - I do have a life, but I often have strong urges to avoid it.  :-) and the reason you don't see the phrase is that I reverted it. check the last diff. --Ludwigs2 01:00, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, right. On that one I was focused on the "As with all pseudoscientific claims of extra-sensory perception." This is merely wrong because if interpreted in terms of the impression it gives it means "all claims of ESP are pseudoscience," which is wrong to say in that there is no source for it. And if interpreted literally, well, duh: of course all pseudoscientific claims of ESP are not accepted. ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 02:21, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

The phrase does not say "Since all claims of extra-sensory perception are pseudoscientific...." That's one that gives the impression that all claims of ESP are pseudoscience. The phrase is clearly worded to discuss only the claims of ESP that are pseudoscientific. There clearly are claims that are pseudoscientific. We have RTC to show for that one. ScienceApologist (talk) 04:09, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

More edit warring. More POV pushing. Another page protected because of you. ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 04:43, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

<sigh...>don't let it get you down. dealing with true believers is always difficult. I think we may have to opened this to RfC before it gets any more uncivilized. it's such a minor point that getting turned into such a major debacle - maybe they need the general community to convince them that they're out of line. --Ludwigs2 04:56, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Right. RfC's usually don't get much response around here. We already asked for informal mediation. We could ask for formal mediation if we wanted to. You could do it. Maybe people don't like hearing from me, I'm not sure. ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 05:05, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Protected

Protected for a week - sort it out. And please focus on the content, not on other editors - comments about POV pushing and true believers aren't really helpful. Vsmith (talk) 05:16, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

my apologies, I hadn't thought 'true believers' was an objectionable term (partly because it has been used at least four other times on this talk page, but mostly because I have a great, if sorrowful, respect for faith).

at any rate, despite the fact that the issues are clear, no one seems to actually want to discuss the matter, and that's certainly not going to lead to any resolution. so let me just spell out my objections.

1. the use of completely unnecessary and distinctly pejorative words: i.e. 'pseudo-scientific,' 'purported' and 'anecdotal'.
2. the use of sentence structures designed to overstate or mislead. e.g.: 'the scientific community accepts none of the alleged instances' as opposed to something like 'the scientific community has not accepted any of the alleged instances' - the first phrasing imputes an ongoing attitude to the scientific community; the second, milder, statement merely states that no cases have been accepted to date. the second statement is unarguably true, while the first makes implications about current and future beliefs of scientists which violate wp:crystal ball

I welcome any discussion on these points. --Ludwigs2 20:04, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree. ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 20:12, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

1. Since this subject is verifiably 'pseudo-scientific,' 'purported' and 'anecdotal' we will continue to use these words as the sources indicate.
2. Your example is weaseling. What we need is to be clear and concise about the lack of scientific backing to this subject.

ScienceApologist (talk) 23:35, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

hmmm...

• is your 'verifiabilty' point intended to counter the fact that the term is pejorative, or to counter the fact that it is unnecessary in the context of this article? your understanding of neutrality seems to be confounded by your personal beliefs concerning objective truth. don't get me wrong, I don't believe in remote viewing any more than you do, but I do believe that (as a topic) it deserves a fair and unbiased presentation.
• you have completely misrepresented the policies on weaseling. There are no weasel words in my statement; in fact, my statement merely presents the objective facts of the matter, without trying to shade their meaning one way or another. let me be perfectly clear. it is an undeniable historical fact that 'the scientific community has not accepted any...'; it is arguable, however, whether 'the scientific community accepts none...' since that seems to impute that they could never accept, which is clearly something we have no knowledge of.

also, please take care with your language. using phrases like 'we will continue to use these words...' in a discussion about content might be interpreted by some as a statement of ownership of the article. I'm sure you didn't mean it that way, but I'd prefer to keep this conversation above reproach. --Ludwigs2 02:04, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

That's beautifully put, you're a good writer (: One might also note that accepting "none of the evidence" is different from "accepting the evidence" in general. One might accept some of the evidence (as Richard Wiseman, member of CSICOP does) without accepting the thing itself. In other words, one can accept evidence without accepting the claims. Thus, there is a big difference between

"As with other forms of extra-sensory perception, no claims of remote viewing have been accepted by the scientific community."

and

"the scientific community accepts none of the alleged instances of remote viewing as being actual evidence of psychic perception."

A huge difference, now that I come to think of it. ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 02:43, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

The first version is clearer and more to the point. Claiming that is is biased misses the point that Misplaced Pages is not the place to right great wrongs. You might think it is biased, but the best sources we have on the subject treat it as such. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:51, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Which sources are you talking about? Have you read above, where we are talking about stuff like the Skeptic's encyclopedia, which does not treat it with so much disrespect? ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 18:58, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

The sources we have for the statement are summarized appropriately in the current text of the article. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:03, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I believe that these sources are not new, and their use has been adequately covered in the discussions on this page. The consensus was to use them as they were being used "As with other forms of extra-sensory perception, no claims of remote viewing have been accepted by the scientific community." If you have other arguments which might serve to help change this consensus, it would be good if you were to tell them here. ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 19:17, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

In fact, ScienceApologist, no. your version is neither clearer nor more to the point. allow me to quote myself, because it seems you didn't actually read my last post. I said:

it is an undeniable historical fact that 'the scientific community has not accepted any...'; it is arguable, however, whether 'the scientific community accepts none...' since that seems to impute that they could never accept, which is clearly something we have no knowledge of.

this shows that my version is both clearer and more to the point, as well as being less biased. now are you going to make me type this passage yet again (it would be the fourth time, I think), or do you think you could manage to respond to it this time?

also, you have once again misconstrued wikipedia policy. first you apparently assume that I am trying to Right some Great Wrong, rather than simply produce a reasonably neutral article (I have no idea where you got that idea). then you gave me a link to wp:not where there is no mention whatsoever of righting wrongs. if you're going to provide policy links, please make them accurate and comprehensible, because I can't make heads or tails of the way you're using them now.

and I'll point out in passing that you also failed to respond to my question about your use of 'verifiability.' in fact, I haven't yet seen you engage in reasoned discussion about anything, and that's beginning to pique my curiosity. is that a tactic, or is it just the way you argue? --Ludwigs2 00:56, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

it seems that ScienceApologist has no further comments to make on this debate. since the comments he has made to date have failed to respond to my concerns or raise any valid points, and the policies he has cited are at best confused and misconstrued, I feel justified in asking that my revisions be implemented. may I ask if we have consensus on this point? --Ludwigs2 20:04, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

My version is better. It is sourced appropriately and explains the situation in the most WP:NPOV way. ScienceApologist (talk) 00:34, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

particular attribution

Just to enter the discussion: the underlying point to all this dispute is the paragraph is not fullfilling Misplaced Pages:FRINGE#Particular_attribution. That's it, it doesn't say "it's pseudoscience" "it's generally considered pseudoscience" instead of "some claim that it's pseudoscience". Can you solve that, and then edit war over the rest of the minor points, please? (See WP:PSCI for the wording) --Enric Naval (talk) 17:28, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I made the fix on this edit --Enric Naval (talk) 02:56, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

that works for me. also, what do you think about the reliability of "the skeptical enquirer" as a reference? there's three mentions of it in the lead, but I've never heard of it before. --Ludwigs2 03:06, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Skeptical Inquirer is published by *gasp* the evil guys at CSICOP :D It's peer-reviewed (so there should be little factual errors) and probably very reliable for a) what skeptics think of certain topics b) which topics are considered pseudoscience by a good part of the scientific community and which are not (since it's the first journal where scientists will go to publish rants about what they consider pseudoscience, and, of all journals related to science, it's the one most likely to accept those rants).

Basically, it's the more likely place where peer-reviewed analysis of fringe topics by scientists will be published. --Enric Naval (talk) 03:38, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

It can be pretty good. Sometimes it is a mere debunking organ, but when you get a good author you can get some good analysis. The particular article is by Hyman, who, though a debunker, is about the nearest thing parapsychology has to a responsible critic. It is not peer reviewed, as far as I know, where do you get your information? But it is a highly partisan source, so must be attributed. ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 03:50, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

It's an excellent source for skeptical opinion (and often with references to good research sources) and can be obtained (along with Skeptic and The Skeptic magazines) at book stores like Barnes and Noble. The editorial boards and authors include high profile scientists and experts on various topics related to the subjects dealt with. Their POV is based in the scientific POV, but since scientists don't write POV in scientific research, it is in such magazines (and skeptical websites) that they express their POV. -- Fyslee / talk 04:42, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, exactly right, excellent source for skeptical opinion. The reader should know it is such, or be told the source. But an excellent source, and some of the articles are very good. ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 04:45, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Army and CIA

IF any of this did NOT work, they would not have spent $millions in it. 65.173.104.109 (talk) 05:38, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

How is that for a argument?! 65.173.104.109 (talk) 05:39, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

lol - a bit too much on the 'conspiracy theory' side for me. plus, I'm having a hard time picturing hard-core marines drinking medicinal teas and giving each other 'healing touch' therapy. but maybe that's just me.  :-D —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ludwigs2 (talk • contribs) 06:00, 14 June 2008

How did the Marines get into this? I recall some pretty good Vietnamese medicinal tea and roasting mini marshmallows over candles on a beach at Ky Ha once upon a time ... but careful with the healing touch therapy bit. :-) Vsmith (talk) 12:11, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

The govt never pour$ money down rathole$, like the DRUG WAR and ABSTINENCE PROGRAMS or HUNDREDS OF NUCLEAR WARHEADS or ETHANOL FROM CORN. ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 05:33, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

<some comments unrelated to article content redacted to User talk:Ludwigs2#Accusations>

NPOV tag

do we still need this? the article is looking pretty balanced to me right now. I'm going to take it down, but if anyone feels that's premature, please reinstate it. --Ludwigs2 04:54, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

The article isn't terrible at this point. However, for example, the program was terminated because the info wasn't actionable I think (rather than non-existent). Some of the reports were very favorable. But don't have time for the moment. That's the problem with this article: the sources aren't nearly as negative as you would think. Why did Wiseman, member of CSICOP say it was proven to the standards of other sciences? And he's quoting Utts see . Have to go, or I'd do the research. I have the sources, but would need to just look it up. ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 05:13, 23 June 2008 (UTC)