Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:24, 30 December 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.

Paranormal B‑class

This article falls under the scope of WikiProject Paranormal, which aims to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the paranormal and related topics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, you can edit the attached article, help with current tasks, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and discussions.ParanormalWikipedia:WikiProject ParanormalTemplate:WikiProject Paranormalparanormal B This article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2

Recent edits and mediation

THB, you've made a lot of edits to this article recently, and most of them I agree with. Your most recent ones I don't agree with, however. This article is supposed to be under mediation, and I've just left a message with our ostensible mediator asking him to become involved. In the meantime, I ask that you hold off on editing at this point. In return I won't revert your latest changes; we can discuss them under mediation. KarlBunker 18:30, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Followup: Since you have continued to edit, and are apparently afraid to engage in a discussion of this or any other issue, I'll just go ahead and make some edits of my own. KarlBunker 05:15, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Introduction

Davkal, the introduction is looking much better and more balanced. -THB 17:31, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Theories of telepathy

This section, the most important part of an encyclopedia on telepathy, is almost non-existent--the section on fictional telepathy is larger. -THB 17:31, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Experiments

The experiments section describes experiments in almost as much detail as they are on their main pages. Perhaps they should be summarized here since they have their own articles elsewhere with a note "for main article see: xxxxx" etc. -THB 17:31, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Page split

I really must protest the recent page split that happened without any discussion or even a talk page comment. For an article this controversial it's very bad manners, at the least, and could be seen as a POV fork. CovenantD 16:57, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Certainly Scientific investigation of telepathy is important enough to deserve its own article. I would assume good faith on the part of that editor. Everyone here wants Misplaced Pages to remain neutral POV. I opened a discussion on that possibility above. The telepathy article clearly refers to the new article. The section on experimentation was almost the sum total of the individual articles on each experiments or group of experiments. -THB 17:22, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I apologize for not discussing the move. I'll do so next time. My reason for splitting the article has pretty much been summed up by THB; you can't have a telepathy article and dwell on the science experiments. -- Selmo 17:28, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I've long said that this article was POV in favor of skeptisism, so I understand your desires, and appreciate that you now understand that discussion first would have been preferable. (For what it's worth, I don't have feelings one way or another on the split itself, just the lack of discussion.). CovenantD 18:54, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

how many thoughts that grass is green can you fit into a matchbox

I note the following from the main article "and since the physical components of the mind are all much larger than this". Since nobody has any real firm idea what constitutes the conscious mind and what its physical components might even be (if they exist), let alone what size they are, I think this might need to be described in rather more speculative terms.Davkal 08:11, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Atomic Model Theoreom by Radwan B.

Is this original research? -00:13, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I propose we remove pending some info about sources.Davkal 18:08, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Done. -THB 18:37, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Proposal For External Reference

I would like to propose the following article for an external links:

The Existence Of The Faculty Of Telepathy

Psychic - Clairvoyance Or Telepathy?

Spiritism And Telepathy - Mrs. Leonora E. Piper

Yogi Philosophy - Telepathy and Clairvoyance

Smithville 00:38, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

citation

A citation is requested for "these quantum effects must be negligible". I've checked a few sources looking for this, and I haven't specifically found any mentioning that the effects are neglibible, but I have found some saying that it is incorrect to try to account for telepathy using Quantum Mechanics. Will that do? Bubba73 (talk), 03:17, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Telepathy is not real. There is no scientific proof for it. It does not exist. I'm surprised how this article describes it like it's a real thing, or even a possibility. What a shame. Gary84 07:40, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Gary84, I agree. Yet the NPOV banner was put up with the comment that it's biased against the paranormal! I agree, the opening needs to establish that this is fictional or pseudo before describing it "as real", which is the case of other pages. It sure beats using imperfect tenses all throughout. —Długosz 04:36, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Well Bubba73, I'm of the opinion that telepathy can't be explained by quantum mechanics as now formulated, and I've heard the same thing (though I'd like to see your sources for interest). It should say "some physicists", though, because quite a few really good ones have spoken of QM as a possible explanation for telepathy. But I don't think the sentence is relevant, because no one knows how small an effect could account for telepathy, so a negligible amount might do the trick. Also, I think that it is incorrect that the components of the brain are too large for quantum effects. There are interactions at the ends of ummm... dendrites, the little thingies which stretch out from the neurons, and they don't quite touch, and sparks basically go between them. Martinphi 22:49, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Science needs to show that there is some effect in need of explaining before "some physicists" propose explanations for it. At best, it's playful speculation. It is NOT an indication that there is a possibility for it. As for the gaps between nerve cells, they are spanned by large molecules moving between them. To look for specific citations about lack of QM in human cells, I recall seeing that in reaction to Penrose's book. Perhaps searching for things written in response to "Emperor's New Mind" a few years after the book was first published will turn up some hard numbers. —Długosz 04:24, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I looked in some books but couldn't find anything specific - just that QM doesn't allow it. I didn't think about that book, though. I have it and I'll try to have a look in a few days. Bubba73 (talk), 04:39, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, maybe that book isn't the place to look, but responses to it, as you said. Bubba73 (talk), 04:41, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

People need to watch out for NPOV here. You're talking very authoritatively about an aspect of parapsychology, an entire field of science. It won't work to assert your opinion about whether telepathy is real or not. In point of fact, there are experiments which say it is real. The most detailed and authoritative criticisms (for instance, those by Hyman) only go so far as to say that more research is needed. Under these circumstances, this article won't be able push the reader one way or the other as to the reality of telepathy. But, as would be the case in many fields, if the evidence is presented neutrally the reader may go away with the impression that there is telepathy. This is as it should be according to policy. Martin 08:32, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Woo-Woos

I'm looking at the ref in "Scientific Investigation of Telepathy," section where it says

"Detractors counter that Radin is too accepting of studies as "reputable", and that if Radin or anyone else has scientific proof, it is strange that he does not apply for the Randi Prize."

Well, I think we should include a quote from that page, if y'all think it is a good source. Otherwise, perhaps we should find a different, less reputable source. How about this quote?:

"Really? Well, Dean Radin has been remarkably silent in the nine years since his book came out. He’s of course eligible for the million-dollar prize if he can produce one example – from his book or from anywhere else – that proves the case for parapsychology. Why haven’t I heard from him, let alone from Lou Gentile…? Just what can it be that prevents these woo-woos from applying for and winning the prize?"

Now, as someone who thinks that the parapsychologists are onto something, I think this is a great source, and a great quote. I'm just putting it here so the skeptics can have their say. NPOV, you know. Martinphi 04:59, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

P.S., the following has appeared in the same section: "However, medical drug testing is an example of the standard of proof to which telepathy studies would have to reach in order to convince skeptics." As I'm sure you all know, Dean Radin uses the example of medical research done to prove aspirin is effective in helping prevent heart attacks, comparing the effects of aspirin to the much greater psi effect. So, I guess you all believe in telepathy. Martinphi 05:06, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Last sentence of Intro

I restored the last sentence of the intro to

Despite the willingness to believe in the phenomenon, it has never been demonstrated in a rigorous scientific experiment (see Scientific Investigation below).

My reasons are carefully considered and are as follows:

1. Provide NPOV. Telepathy is fictional, but the fact that some people believe in it is a real cultural phenomenon that needs to be covered to present "both sides".
2. The issues of why some experimenters claim positive results is a major issue in itself, and can't be glossed over with one sentence. It deserves its own section, and has one. Content that should go there (including the ref to E.B. if deemed suitable) goes there. The brief intro points to it. This issue (as opposed to all the other information in the article) needs to be in the intro because of the controversial nature. But don't try and explain the controversy with one sentence.

Improving that section is another story.

—Długosz 01:44, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

You are obviously trying to push a point of view. This will not succeed on Misplaced Pages. My revision was in accordance with the source cited, which is a production of a couple of the primary scientists in the field. It may have been POV in the context though. However, we can come to a compromise which does not push the reader either way. Let me be very clear: This article must remain NPOV. Your view that "telepathy does not exist" will not be made clear in the summary. It has its own section down the page.

Within the field of parapsychology there is really no debate on whether telepathy exists. Misplaced Pages articles follow the Scientific consensus of scientists in a particular field, see this. Thus, there is really no reason that the articles dealing with subjects studied in parapsychology need to genuflect to skeptics even if the skeptics are correct. Of course, skepticism should be covered, as a matter of thoroughness. In fact, because there is so much controversy (mostly between people outside the field with people inside it), it should be given more coverage in parapsychological topics. But the skeptics need not be given equal time, nor does skepticism need to be part of the definition.

Let me reiterate that your POV editing is inappropriate on this site.

However, you are right that the summary here is too brief to cover such issues. Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 04:24, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• B-Class paranormal articles
• Unknown-importance paranormal articles
• WikiProject Paranormal articles