| Revision as of 13:57, 8 July 2024 editProtalina (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users1,441 edits Undid revision 1232938592 by Lowercase sigmabot III (talk) Respectfully, these issues are toi recent to be archived.Tags: Undo Reverted Mobile edit Mobile app edit Android app edit← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 21:02, 17 December 2024 edit undoSineBot (talk | contribs)Bots2,556,662 editsm Signing comment by 76.130.142.29 - "" |
| (4 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown) |
| Line 18: |
Line 18: |
|
|
|
|
|
== Refs== |
|
== Refs== |
|
|
|
|
== Einstein == |
|
|
I don't think Einstein should be mentioned that heavily in the article. The article gives the reader the totally false impression that this esoteric bullshit idea is somehow connected to the theories of relativity. --] (]) 12:30, 5 March 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
:I removed this: "he had begun considering the possibility of a non-causal principle as early as 1909–1910 and 1912–1913, when he met ] and was introduced to the idea of the ]". This is like "he had begun considering the idea when he visited Paris". Jung, or the guy who wrote that sentence, believed that there was some synchronicity between the two events. So what? Misplaced Pages is not for promoting fringe theories, and the idea that there is some connection between Jung hearing about science and Jung concocting an unconnected specific stupid idea is fringe, especially if the sentence in the article suggests a logical connection, as this one did. --] (]) 07:15, 12 March 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
::Thanks for your edits but unfortunately we must go by what ] say. I agree that this should be handled carefully which is why direct quotations are helpful for avoiding misrepresentation of scholarly source. But if Jung's conversations with Albert Einstein and Wolfgang Pauli are considered {{em|noteworthy to the origins of the idea}} by academic sources (e.g. ''Encyclopedia of Critical Psychology'' published by ], and ]'s paper published in the ''Journal of Analytical Psychology'') then this article must reflect that. We cannot misrepresent a subject or concept simply because it is wrong or disliked. I'm not really sure what you mean by "{{tq|Jung, or the guy who wrote that sentence, believed that there was some synchronicity}}" since the Bishop quotation only states that Jung {{em|claims}} to have drawn inspiration from his conversations with Einstein—nothing more. It is an academic fact that Jung had conversations with Einstein and Pauli, and that Jung believed these conversations to have inspired him in inventing the concept of synchronicity. If you have any reliable sources that refute the notability of this information please share them so an agreement can be reached. Cheers, ''''']'''''<sup>]]</sup> 00:10, 13 March 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Obviously, we cannot mention everything a sources mentions. We need to choose which parts are relevant enough for an encyclopedia article. Also, we have rules such as ]. I am pretty sure that the source which mentioned Einstein also mentioned heaps of other people influencing Jung. If we write that Jung was influenced by Einstein, without mentioning all those other people, many of whom are crackpots like Jung himself, we are doing a selection with the implication that synchronicity is somehow scientific. Which it is not. Thus violating ]. |
|
|
:::This is not simply ]. None of the people quoted here has any expertise in physics, and there is no reason to assume that any of them knows what the theories of relativity are actually about, so their mentioning Einstein is on the same level as if they had written "shortly after Jung had come back from a vacation in Naples". There is no logical connection between Jung doing something such as talking to Einstein (or taking a vacation) and his ] ideas. If he claimed that he was inspired by Einstein, we can write that he claimed that, but we cannot just state a correlational connection, implying a causal connection as if it were a fact. --] (]) 09:38, 17 March 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
::::It still stands that if this hypothetical "vacation in Naples" is considered amply {{em|notable}} by academic sources and ] then it must receive due weight. We are talking about historical facts here, rather than scientific {{em|implications}}. Wolfgang Pauli's contribution especially is heavily noted in a multitude of sources which makes discluding these facts from an origins section somewhat dubious. (Yes, he is mentioned several times throughout the article and not without reason; he was Jung's principle collaborator on this topic. It is perhaps of greater importance throughout the article to state {{em|what}} Pauli actually did in this capacity, rather than just name-dropping for the sake of name-dropping as you say. Your concern seems to lie more with Einstein.) As for "{{tq|I am pretty sure that the source which mentioned Einstein ...}}", I can only suggest double-checking the sources yourself; besides physicists, Taoism and ] are perhaps also undermentioned in the origins section. All historical facts must be presented according to due weight then there can be no improper emphasis. I may suggest re-adding something along the lines of: "Furthermore, Jung states/claims that he drew influence for the concept from his conversations with ] as early as 1909–1910 and 1912–1913." (Here with no unnecessary mention of Einstein's scientific theories as you'd agree they may be misleading. Your further suggestions welcome.) Then of course any well-sourced material {{em|contrary}} to this claim must also be given due weight, if such exists. Thanks for your constructive responses. Cheers, ''''']'''''<sup>]]</sup> 11:54, 19 March 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::Deleting Pauli too was probably too much - yes, it is usually said that he was involved. And diluting Einstein with unscientific influences like Taoism and Rhine would make him more acceptable. Still, the rules do not force us to copy everything from all the sources. |
|
|
:::::I asked at ] what others think. --] (]) 13:31, 19 March 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::There's currently already a long quote that mentions Einstein as an influence, as for the material Hob removed, it appears ] and to suggest that physicists also entertained the idea, which seems implausible, considering that such philosophical misinterpretations and mystical readaptations of physics happen outside of the field (like in this case, Jung's ideas, Chopra... an exception might be Capra like in ], an article that probably needs a little work too BTW, but still, it's not development in physics, more popscience artistic synchretic presentation)... —]] – 03:16, 20 March 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Academic sources on pseudoscience == |
|
|
|
|
|
Really what this article is lacking is reliable academic sources (specifically publications from scientific journals and academic journals) which explicitly mention pseudoscience. So far the only source close to this is an article by Christopher Bonds in '']''; the rest that actually mention pseudoscience are all nonacademic. Please if you can help find some properly academic science publications with this information it would help a lot! Thanks, ''''']'''''<sup>]]</sup> 02:37, 2 October 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Popular culture == |
|
== Popular culture == |
| Line 58: |
Line 43: |
|
::Btw, this is a bit elliptical, now that I notice it :). Note-to-self: on the ], propose something like "Concept in Chinese society" (as in the lead) or "...in Chinese culture". |
|
::Btw, this is a bit elliptical, now that I notice it :). Note-to-self: on the ], propose something like "Concept in Chinese society" (as in the lead) or "...in Chinese culture". |
|
::— ] (]) 14:16, 2 July 2024 (UTC) |
|
::— ] (]) 14:16, 2 July 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Done — ] (]) 19:22, 16 July 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Shambolic sentence in the lede == |
|
== Shambolic sentence in the lede == |
| Line 69: |
Line 55: |
|
:— replace the current citation with an OED one, and delete the second sentence (ie, the one in question, to be clear). |
|
:— replace the current citation with an OED one, and delete the second sentence (ie, the one in question, to be clear). |
|
:— ] (]) 12:58, 6 July 2024 (UTC) |
|
:— ] (]) 12:58, 6 July 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::Done. — ] (]) 07:45, 21 July 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== no clarity == |
|
|
i dont understand what it is, I understand the controvery <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 21:01, 17 December 2024 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
Regarding the 2021 notice "This section may contain information not important or relevant to the article's subject."
The examples quoted help illustrate the concept, and so are relevant to the subject of the article. If there's no objection, I propose to delete the notice in one month's time. At that point, I suggest adding three subheads: Jung, Deschamps, Pauli. Plus moving the para starting "After describing some examples, Jung wrote..." to be above the Deschamps one, in order to bring the Jung text in this section together.
— Protalina (talk) 10:24, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
This sentence is unnecessarily confusing and could be written much clearer - “Synchronicity experiences refer to one's subjective experience whereby coincidences between events in one's mind and the outside world may be causally unrelated, yet have another unknown connection.” CarlStrokes (talk) 05:32, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
![[REDACTED]](https://u3vuiephb.global.ssl.fastly.net/File:Paranormallogo1.png){kind=link}
