Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:53, 23 January 2016

Template:Vital article

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to pseudoscience and fringe science, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Arbitration Ruling on the Treatment of Pseudoscience In December of 2006 the Arbitration Committee ruled on guidelines for the presentation of topics as pseudoscience in Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience. The final decision was as follows: Neutral point of view as applied to science: Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view, a fundamental policy, requires fair representation of significant alternatives to scientific orthodoxy. Significant alternatives, in this case, refers to legitimate scientific disagreement, as opposed to pseudoscience. Serious encyclopedias: Serious and respected encyclopedias and reference works are generally expected to provide overviews of scientific topics that are in line with respected scientific thought. Misplaced Pages aspires to be such a respected work. Obvious pseudoscience: Theories which, while purporting to be scientific, are obviously bogus, such as Time Cube, may be so labeled and categorized as such without more justification. Generally considered pseudoscience: Theories which have a following, such as astrology, but which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community may properly contain that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience. Questionable science: Theories which have a substantial following, such as psychoanalysis, but which some critics allege to be pseudoscience, may contain information to that effect, but generally should not be so characterized. Alternative theoretical formulations: Alternative theoretical formulations which have a following within the scientific community are not pseudoscience, but part of the scientific process.

This topic contains controversial issues, some of which have reached a consensus for approach and neutrality, and some of which may be disputed. Before making any potentially controversial changes to the article, please carefully read the discussion-page dialogue to see if the issue has been raised before, and ensure that your edit meets all of Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. Please also ensure you use an accurate and concise edit summary.

	Parapsychology is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
[REDACTED]	This article appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page as Today's featured article on August 11, 2008.
Article milestones Date Process Result July 19, 2007 Good article nominee Listed July 31, 2007 Peer review Reviewed July 31, 2007 Featured article candidate Not promoted September 11, 2007 Featured article candidate Promoted September 22, 2009 Featured article review Demoted Current status: Former featured article

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Parapsychology (inactive) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Parapsychology, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.ParapsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject ParapsychologyTemplate:WikiProject ParapsychologyParapsychology Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. [REDACTED] Paranormal High‑importance [REDACTED] 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 High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Psychology High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Occult High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Occult, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to the occult on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OccultWikipedia:WikiProject OccultTemplate:WikiProject OccultOccult High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Skepticism Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article has been marked as needing immediate attention. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. [REDACTED] Alternative views High‑importance [REDACTED] This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative viewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative viewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative viewsAlternative views High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20

This page has archives. Sections older than 200 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 2 sections are present.

The following Misplaced Pages contributor has declared a personal or professional connection to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view. Annalisa Ventola (talk · contribs) This user has contributed to the article. This user has declared a connection. (COI declared here.)

The Problem of Materialist Bias

The current page entry for this subject is inaccurate and not in accordance with Misplaced Pages's Neutral POV policy. Never before have I seen a topic that presented such a heavily one-sided and biased point of view. I understand that the bully materialists who censor this page are under the impression that there is no scientific evidence whatsoever to support even the mere possibility of the phenomena — which simply is not true. And when I tried to submit such evidence I was told that it was not credible and that it was "fringe." Since when are mainstream universities, institutions, and publications "fringe"?! It is ironic that the materialists, who think of themselves as the vanguard standard bearers of the Enlightenment have become just as insolent and bigoted as the religionists.

(1) The vitriolic designation "pseudoscience" needs to be taken out of the introductory sentence. If such cynics want to ad the word at the end of the paragraph that seems fair enough. This is not asking much, due not only to NPOV policy but the other standard mainstream dictionaries and encyclopedias are doing the same. This is because, despite what the materialists are trying to force others to believe, the issue has not been settled. (Furthermore, putting "pseudoscience" into the introductory sentence is just plain immature and not very classy.)

(2) Data that indicate statistical anomalies that cannot be attributed to known causes and PROVEN deficiencies (as opposed to assumed), must be left undeleted. I understand that no matter what source I submit the militant materialists will concoct a way to condemn it, which is why this double-standard method needs to stop. If a book that is used on another page is considered legitimate then it should be applicable to this topic as well.

And in return we will show the same fairness, because, I am sure that if I looked hard enough, I could find some imperfections in the materialist source material. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Novoneiro (talk • contribs) 01:40, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

You are not really writing the truth about your edits. You added a paranormal pseudoscience book called "Unseen World: The Science, Theories, and Phenomena behind Events Paranormal" by Rupert Matthews (an author who has also written books claiming bigfoot is real) to argue that J. B. Rhine's discredited ESP experiments were actually valid, this is not a reliable source. The majority of reliable sources show that Rhine's experiments contained strong biases, errors and sensory leakage problems.JuliaHunter (talk) 22:11, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

You forgot to mention that Matthew's book was put out by Reader's Digest, which is about as mainstream as it gets (that was my intention). And are you sure that Matthews claims that Bigfoot is real, or did he simply just write a book about Bigfoot? But even if I submitted studies from respected peer-reviewed journals, I am sure that the materialists would just concoct some new excuse to delete it. This is exactly why parapsychologists themselves have given up on[REDACTED] and let it fall prey to the cynics and the bullies. I have not seen anything that demands that JB Rhine's experiments have been completely discredited beyond all doubt. It's ironic that you see bias in Rhine's work and yet do not seem to see bias from the other side. The problem with bias is so pervasive that any scientist who has sought to conduct honest experimentation have had to publish in specialty journals - in which there is plenty of the rigorous attention to detail that you seek. I could easily cite such studies but I suppose that would get deleted to. The main point is that this is not settled science. The haughty declaration in the opening sentence that "Parapsychology is a pseudoscience," is misleading and needs to be amended. Let' start with that. Novoneiro (talk) 01:46, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Rupert Matthews is a British politician and paranormal believer. And yes he's also written books endorsing not just Bigfoot but ghosts as well. He is about as fringe as it gets. Professional psychologists such as James Alcock and C. E. M. Hansel have pointed out the flaws in Rhine's experiments. They are more reliable so that is why such references have been cited on the article. It has nothing to with being a 'materialist'. As for the parapsychology is a pseudoscience statement, this is well sourced to scientific books and publications. There is no repeatable evidence from parapsychology, not a shred of evidence in over 150 years. Not a single experiment that can provide conclusive repeatable results outside of parapsychology labs. It has not made any testable predictions or yielded any reliable theory.

The subject matter dealing with 'immaterial' psychic forces or 'psi' that blatantly do not exist is hardly encouraging, the field of parapsychology is not scientific or supported by any empirical evidence to date. That is what the sources say, it has nothing to do with materialistic bias. If the evidence was in, the scientific journals would be endorsing it but it doesn't exist. I am sure we would all like a magical cancer cure by now from 'psychic' forces or logging into Misplaced Pages just with our minds but it don't happen. There is no conspiracy to suppress this on Misplaced Pages like you claim. There is not a shred of scientific evidence for bigfoot, parapsychology, creationism, astrology or other magical claims. The statement that parapsychology is a pseudoscience is supported by many reliable sources on the article. I do not see it being removed any time soon. JuliaHunter (talk) 02:14, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

The statement 'there is not a shred of evidence' is often made, but is not correct. See for example ref. 2, which I believe is a university textbook on the subject. If the existence of conclusive proof were a criterion for some activity to be scientific, that would exclude investigations into gravitational waves, and indeed any field of research where the true situation is unclear. What matters is how the research is conducted, and by this criterion there is much scientific work on the subject, as the reference cited shows. --Brian Josephson (talk) 18:12, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

The university textbook you talk about is a book that is supportive of parapsychology co-edited by Caroline Watt. So what Novoneiro is saying is not entirely true. Not all of the sources on the article are entirely skeptical or written by 'materialists'. What is the actual problem here? It just comes down to the lead again. There seem to be an obsession from parapsychology proponents to try and remove pseudoscience from the lead. As stated this is well sourced to reliable sources, so there really is no problem. JuliaHunter (talk) 20:21, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Happy 15th. Birthday Misplaced Pages! If we want to be accurate, what is correct is to say that it has been claimed to be a pseudoscience, since clearly there are many sources, including the one I cited, that claim the reverse. It is surely bad practice to write the first paragraph of the lead in such a way as to ignore these opposing points of view. And since Caroline Watt is a lecturer on the staff of a very well accredited university WP can hardly dismiss her views. --Brian Josephson (talk) 20:48, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

The reason why the label "pseudoscience" in this article is incorrect is simple: The principal international organization of scientists and scholars interested in parapsychology is the Parapsychological Association (PA), and the PA has been an elected affiliate of the American Association for the Advancement of Science since 1969. Parapsychology is thus recognized by the largest mainstream scientific organization in the world as being a legitimate science. It is irrelevant that some WP editors may not like this. The fact is that the AAAS only elects organizations as affiliates that clearly promote science, and not pseudoscience. 2601:643:C100:CCEC:2586:DC9D:DF21:A0D7 (talk) 22:50, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

I suggest the replacement of 'pseudoscience' by the neutral 'field of research'. To amplify my previous point, the only time it would be valid to use this kind of term unconditionally would be if there were a clear consensus to this effect, which there isn't -- it is only a small number of disadvocates that have said this. Even if were the case (as some incorrectly maintain) that there has been no proof after 125 or whatever years, that would not be equivalent to characterising the field as a pseudoscience. --Brian Josephson (talk) 12:12, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Furthermore, it appears that the dictionary published by the American Psychological Association makes no reference to 'pseudoscience' in its entry on the subject, referring to it only as the step-by-step analysis of supposed psychological phenomena consisting of the transfer of data or energy which can't be described with regard to currently recognized scientific data or laws. That must be regarded as pretty authoritative, IMHO. --Brian Josephson (talk) 21:57, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Mainstream sources can be found which do not use the term pseudoscience, but that doesn't mean those sources are making a claim that parapsychology is legitimate. The APA dictionary definition doesn't contradict the pseudoscience label, instead supporting it: "...can't be described with regard to currently recognized scientific data or laws." The first paragraph already contains five solid sources for this being a pseudoscience, and to equivocate on this would be non-neutral. The article also has a lengthy, well-sourced section on scientific reception and pseudoscience, and the lead should summarize the body of the article. Even if the PA is one of the hundreds of members of the AAAS, using that membership as an endorsement is selective WP:OR. Do we go by one small sub-organization, or by the published opinions of the large majority of members? Holding a non-mainstream belief and belonging to a mainstream organization doesn't make the belief mainstream by inheritance. Grayfell (talk) 00:06, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

The argument is faulty. Radioactivity, superconductivity and dark energy are all examples of accepted phenomena which were inconsistent with other data and accepted theories at the time of their discovery, but they were not branded pseudoscience; they came out of accepted scientific methodology. The same applies to cases such as faster-that-light neutrinos and gravitational waves from the big bang, which were discovered to be flawed but not considered pseudoscience.
'Published opinion of a large majority of members '? Surely not! Let's have the numbers, please: how many members does the APA have, and how many of these have published opinions to the effect that parapsychology is a pseudoscience?
I'd agree with you that parapsychology is not mainstream, but that's very different from it being pseudoscience. I agree with the points made by Novoneiro below, by the way. --Brian Josephson (talk) 09:35, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Moving right along... Not every significant discovery has been labeled pseudoscience, and some that once were are now taken for granted as mainstream. Pseudoscience has been, and still is, regarded as a pseudoscience. This is directly supported by many sources. The AAAS membership is already mentioned at Parapsychological Association where it belongs. Using that detail to indirectly support the claim that parapsychology isn't pseudoscience in the article would be original research. Regardless of whether or not the APA dictionary supports the pseudoscience label (and I think it does), it doesn't contradict it, and such a brief and minor source isn't really helpful here anyway. Grayfell (talk) 00:59, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

I assume you meant to write ' parapsychology has been ... regarded as a pseudoscience.' Moving on, look at the investigation 'A survey of elite scientists: Their attitudes toward ESP and parapsychology'

339 council members and selected section committee members of the American Association for the Advancement of Science completed a questionnaire regarding their attitudes toward ESP, parapsychology, and anomalous experience. Only 29% of the Ss considered ESP to be an established fact or likely possibility

Having 29% of high-level members of the AAAS consider ESP to be real hardly suggests pseudoscience.
In any case, the argument for it being a pseudoscience is OR, as it constitutes an extrapolation so, by the rules, we have to rule it out. --Brian Josephson (talk) 09:42, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

I would have responded sooner but I got blocked even though I was taking my point to the Talk page. If this was just a source material issue, then why was my contribution to the Princeton PEAR page deleted? which was sourced directly from the Princeton website itself : . This is not a case of healthy scientific skepticism, but rather agenda-driven cynicism with a snarky tone. The fact that the Parapsychology page is protected by someone or some group that is referring to themselves as the “materialists” proves the point. It is evident that the real reason for resistance is due to the fact that the topic is so called “fringe.” Indeed, this was one of the comments that was sent to me. There is nothing wrong with exploration. All historical scientific investigations have started out on the fringe. In regards to findings that were not repeated elsewhere, there are plenty of phenomena in the natural world that cannot always be forcefully concocted in a lab. It doesn't mean it doesn't exist. The subject of parapsychology has not been settled. This is partly because the interpretation of the data is influenced by one's own perspectives and bias's —including bias from the critics. There is a lot being posted pertaining to how imperfect the studies were that indicated anomalous results and yet I do not see such scrutiny when it comes to opponent studies (probably because it got deleted). Some of these complaints even seem to be based on conjecture. Due to the current state of bias, some mainstream journals refuse to even look at studies into parapsychology, which is why specialty publications have had to be created: The Journal of Parapsychology, Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research, European Journal of Parapsychology, International Journal of Parapsychology, Journal of the Society for the Psychical Research.and other journals, institutions, and credentialed researchers. are all reporting significant findings. It is difficult to believe that these are all charlatans. I suspect that the reason people seem to be under the impression that there is no repeatable evidence is probably because those who submitted such evidence had their info deleted before anyone saw it.

Dean Radin, PhD., speaks about this issue:

“Most scientists I've spoken to are very interested in psi, but science, like any social enterprise, has strictly enforced rules of acceptable beliefs, so it is not safe for one's scientific career to publicly pursue controversial topics of any type. The controversy is reflected in the way that Misplaced Pages covers psi and the biographical entries of scientists who study it. These pages have been hijacked by anonymous vandals who apparently have nothing better to do. (See WIKIPEDIOCRACY  for a website devoted to exposing the rising tide of nonsense contained in this popular but critically flawed encyclopedia.)”n “After studying these phenomena through the lens of science for about 30 years, I've concluded that some psychic abilities are genuine, and as such, there are important aspects of the prevailing scientific worldview that are seriously incomplete. I've also learned that many people who claim to have unfailingly reliable psychic abilities are delusional or mentally ill, and that there will always be reprehensible con artists who claim to be psychic and charge huge sums for their services. These two classes of so-called psychics are the targets of celebrated prizes offered for demonstrations of psychic abilities. Those prizes are safe because the claimed abilities of the people who apply either do not exist or because the abilities are insufficiently robust to meet challenges that are actually impossible-to-win publicity stunts. There is of course a huge anecdotal literature about psychic abilities, but the evidence that convinced me is the accumulated laboratory performance by qualified scientists who do not claim to possess special abilities, collected under well-controlled conditions, and published in peer-reviewed scientific journals. There is ample room for scholarly debate about these topics, and I know a number of informed scientists whom I respect who have different opinions. But I've also learned that those who loudly assert with great confidence that there isn't any scientifically valid evidence for psychic abilities don't know what they're talking about.”

The fair thing to do is to at least put up a Disputed Neutrality tag up. Novoneiro (talk) 01:41, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

References

1. http://www.princeton.edu/~pear/experiments.html
2. http://web.arizona.edu/~vas/358/doespsi.pdf
3. http://deanradin.com/evidence/evidence.htm
4. http://parapsych.org/articles/36/55/what_is_the_stateoftheevidence.aspx
5. http://wikipediocracy.com/
6. http://www.deanradin.com/NewWeb/bio.html

Tags aren't supposed to be a badge of shame, they are for improving the article. If every content dispute lead to a tag, then every article worth reading would have more tag than content. Dean Radin's findings and opinions are not in agreement with the academic consensus, and his self-written bio is a poor source for any article other than Dean Radin (and even then...) This isn't the place to talk about PEAR, but WP:PRIMARY sources are not acceptable for controversial claims, which was explained in the edit summaries. I'm not sure why you keep bringing up "materialists", are you confused about the name of the editor who protected the page? That editor's username is "Materialscientist". Materials science has almost nothing to do with parapsychology or materialism as a philosophy, it's about materials: metals, minerals, plastics, that kind of thing. Grayfell (talk) 03:08, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Speaking of the PEAR article, the issue of pseudoscience there was finally addressed as follows: "PEAR's activities have been criticized for lack of scientific rigor, poor methodology, and misuse of statistics, and have been characterized as pseudoscience", along with a series of reliable reference sources. Surely our job here is to more accurately reflect someone else's claim or characterization in a similar fashion, rather than opening with the bald assertion "...is a pseudoscience" as the first phrase. Seems like it would be better to lead off with a brief descriptive phrase of the field, and add the pseudo characterization after that. The idea is to differentiate between good-faith (though somewhat wacky IMO) research in psi and real pseudoscience as practiced by faith healing con artists, psychic spoon-benders, and the like. jxm (talk) 16:41, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

You say 'wacky research', but have you studied actual research articles before coming to that conclusion? But maybe you just mean unorthodox.
Anyway, I've now been able to get a copy of the full McClenon paper from a colleague. Most pertinent to the pseudoscience issue is Table 2 of that paper, detailing responses from 5 questionnaires to the question do you consider the investigation of ESP a legitimate scientific undertaking, where the precentages answering 'yes' in the five independent investigation are 89, 89, 85, 84, 69 (the last being that of McClenon's own investigation). This is absolutely inconsistent with the assertion that there is consensus that parapsychology is a pseudoscience. The fact that a few fanatical scientists have characterised it in such terms is irrelevant; they are a tiny minority. --Brian Josephson (talk) 17:18, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Basically, the question boils down to due weight. In some articles, the subject is considered to be a pseudoscience by a large minority, and it is appropriate to say "has been characterized as pseudoscience by this group". In other articles, the pseudoscience label is held by a majority, or very significant majority, and we should not relegate the characterization to a small group as though it were disputed. We do not, for example, say "the Earth has been characterized as round". The state of our sourcing is that nearly every reliable academic source on the topic views parapsychology as a pseudoscience. That isn't "a large minority". That is "the overwhelming majority", compelling us to abide by WP:PSI and WP:FRINGE. Reviewing both, you'll find the latter even uses parapsychology as an example of pseudoscience.   — Jess· Δ♥ 04:27, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Are you a member of the materialscientists? Just wanted to know if you are qualified to make that assertion because it does not say “materials scientist” (as in materials and engineering), it says material scientist. So it is then just coincidence that the issue here is between materialism and non-material phenomena and you guys chose that name? Furthermore, I was not trying to infer that Tags are a badge of shame, but rather that visitors to the page who are seeking the truth should be alerted to the one-sided point of view that is dominating this page, and all other related topic pages, such as ESP and PEAR. This is a fair request. Furthermore, the PEAR controversy happened on the PEAR page. I brought it up because I was accused of not submitting credible sources. And yet when I did it still got deleted it. The explanation for the deletion (either on that PEAR edit, or one of the other deletions on the ESP page) was that I was legitimizing the subject!, which I think was a very telling admission of bias. That was my point. And no, Radin's credentials cannot be denied. Moreover, all scientific investigations have started out with a person or a small group of persons who were out of the mainstream. That is why the mainstream consensus point means absolutely nothing. It should also be remembered that there was a time when the theory of continental drift, germs, and meteorites were considered too fringe as well . Here are some more examples from credentialed scientists that can also not be dismissed: A study on retrocausation out of Cornell by Daryl Bem Ph.D. indicates significant results . A study confirming mind and matter interactions by the French physician-researcher, Jean Barry: A study confirming the reality of distance healing: Cypher-Springer, Shelley; Eicher, Dorothea J. A study by R.A. McConnell also indicates that “the phenomena are real, and they can be investigated.” Credentialed researchers such as Elizabeth Rauscher, Russell Tag, O. Costa de Beauregard and Nobel Prize winner Brian Josephson have all attested to the serious nature of the phenomena. See also: See also Russell Targ Ph.D. The Reality of ESP: A Physicists Proof of Psychic Abilities. (2012). And Robert Almeder, Ph.D., Truth and Skepticism and Death and Personal Survival: The Evidence for Life after Death. (1992). The findings indicate that the energy of consciousness is not confined to the brain and that mind and matter interactions have been confirmed . Even the renowned skeptic Carl Sagan admitted in his book, Demon-Haunted World (1996), that there were some aspects related to the paranormal that “might be true.” (p. 302). In terms of books, journals, qualified scientists and scholars, I could go on. Their books are all over Amazon. I understand that critics argue that because the findings cannot be precisely repeated that they must be false. Firstly, one cannot use entirely different people in a separate study and then expect the results to be the same. For example, a subject who who drinks a lot of beer and watches a lot of TV is not going to score the same as Buddhist monk. Therefore the critics have failed to take the subjective nature of the experience into account. This is a major oversight. Indeed, “Its effects are unconscious and evanescent, involving the experimenter as well as his presumed test material.” . Moreover, researchers argue that there have indeed been replications: . The reason why you guys don't know about this is because it keeps getting repressed! I am also wondering if you guys are subjecting the critical data to the same standard that you are subjecting the psi data to? I suspect not. The reason why this is not more commonly known is because it keeps getting disregarded and repressed. If you guys want to make the point that the topic is debatable that is fair. What is not fair is behaving as if the issue has already been settled. This is absurd. The censorship that has been occurring on these pages is a major dark stain on the reputation of Misplaced Pages and something needs to be done about it. Moreover this is not just an affront to[REDACTED] but an affront to science. Novoneiro (talk) 04:53, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Lead Style

I suggest that we aspire to the Misplaced Pages manual of style and examine how we might better introduce this article using WP:LEAD. Back in 2008, this was a featured article and it's lead did a good job of defining the topic, establishing a context, explaining why the topic is notable, and summarizing the most important points, including any prominent controversies. In those days, it read like this:

Parapsychology is the study of paranormal events including extrasensory perception, psychokinesis, and survival of consciousness after death. Parapsychological research involves a variety of methods including laboratory research and fieldwork, which is conducted at privately funded laboratories and some universities around the world though there are fewer universities actively sponsoring parapsychological research today than in years past. Experiments conducted by parapsychologists have included the use of pseudorandom number generators to test for evidence of psychokinesis, sensory-deprivation Ganzfeld experiments to test for extrasensory perception, and research trials conducted under contract to the United States government to investigate the possibility of remote viewing. Though recognized as a legitimate scientific field by the American Association for the Advancement of Science, active parapsychologists have admitted difficulty in getting scientists to accept their research, and science educators and scientists have called the subject pseudoscience. Scientists such as Ray Hyman, Stanley Krippner, and James Alcock have criticized both the methods used and the results obtained in parapsychology. Skeptical researchers suggest that methodological flaws, rather than the anomalistic explanations offered by many parapsychologists, provide the best explanation for apparent experimental successes. To date, the scientific community has not accepted evidence of the existence of the paranormal.

I recommend tweaking it a bit and having it read as thus (changes bolded):

Parapsychology is the study of paranormal events including extrasensory perception, psychokinesis, and survival of consciousness after death. Parapsychological research involves a variety of methods including laboratory research and fieldwork, which is have been conducted at privately funded laboratories and some universities around the world though there are fewer universities actively sponsoring parapsychological research today than in years past (this sounds like original research). Experiments conducted by parapsychologists have included the use of pseudorandom number generators to test for evidence of psychokinesis, sensory-deprivation Ganzfeld experiments to test for extrasensory perception, and research trials conducted under contract to the United States government to investigate the possibility of remote viewing. Though recognized as a legitimate scientific field by the American Association for the Advancement of Science, active parapsychologists have admitted difficulty in getting other scientists to accept their research, and science educators and scientists counter-advocates have called the subject pseudoscience. Scientists Psychologistssuch as Ray Hyman Stanley Krippner, and James Alcock have criticized both the methods used and the results obtained in parapsychology. Skeptical researchers Critics suggest that methodological flaws, rather than the anomalistic explanations offered by many parapsychologists, provide the best explanation for apparent experimental successes. To date, the general scientific community has not accepted evidence of the existence of the paranormal.

Thoughts? 67.149.219.157 (talk) 20:44, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

OK at the start, nice and objective, but then it gets a bit unbalanced, focussing on the negative -- see my comments in previous section. I'm sure though that your text can be amended so that it gives appropriate cover of both sides. Those four succeeding sentences might well be reduced to one or two summarising the views of scientists, giving due attention to what surveys have indicated about scientists as a whole, rather than just the minority of vocal objectors. --Brian Josephson (talk) 20:58, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable. The sentence "Scientists such as Ray Hyman Stanley Krippner, and James Alcock have criticized both the methods used and the results obtained in parapsychology." is redundant and could easily be deleted, since the sentence following says the same thing more generally. 67.149.219.157 (talk) 21:12, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

The scientific consensus is that parapsychology is a pseudoscience. Misplaced Pages does not give equal weight to fringe views. Look at the lead of creationism or homeopathy. 84.43.115.148 (talk) 00:00, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

One wonders how we came to abandon the 2008 version in the first place! :-) The suggested tweaking looks good to me, with one suggested change. The phrase conducted under contract to the United States government seems a bit out-of-place in the exemplar list. Aside from being distracting, it's also inaccurate, as early RV work was independently funded in any case. jxm (talk) 01:43, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

I'd have no problem with someone adding more detail to the lead, as long as it reflects the relative weight of the material contained in the body of the article, such as mentioning the Ganzfield experiments, random number generators, PEAR, etc. However the changes you've suggested above -- such as replacing the word "researchers" with "critics", and "science educators and scientists" with "counter-advocates", or specifying that a "general" scientific community "doesn't accept evidence" of the paranormal (?) -- actually misrepresent what's in the body of the article. Per WP:LEAD, the lead's function is to summarize the article's most important contents, not subtly argue a more sympathetic view for its subject. - LuckyLouie (talk)

LL has this right. Expanding the lead would be fine, but we need to do it with respect to the weight of the sources. We should not sandwich "pseudoscience" between "X considers parapsychology to be...Y disagrees", because that doesn't reflect the best sources we have. The proposed lead takes pains to present parapsychology as scientific, which is problematic. Reviewing our current lead, I don't see anything glaringly wrong, but it does appear short. Summarizing our article more thoroughly would be a better step forward than reverting to 2008.   — Jess· Δ♥ 04:14, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

1. Tucker, Jim B., M.D., Life Before Life. St. Martin's Press, NY, 2005. p. 195-196
2. http://dbem.ws/FeelingFuture.pdf (from Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100, 407-425. © 2011 American Psychological Association)
3. Barry J. “General and comparative study of the psychokinetic effect on a fungus culture,” Journal of Parapsychology 32:237-243, 1968.
4. http://search.proquest.com/openview/dfbead9d0b25356a3512f8e5694526eb/1?pq-origsite=gscholar ( “Effects of a prayer circle on a moribund premature infant.” Alternative Therapies in Health and Medicinevol.5, no.2 (Mar 1999): p. 120.)
5. McConnell, R.A. “Psi Phenomena and Methodology.” American Scientist, Vol. 45, No. 2 (MARCH 1957): p. 136
6. Tucker, Jim B., M.D., Life Before Life. St. Martin's Press, NY, 2005. p 188-189.
7. Tucker, Jim B., M.D., Life Before Life. St. Martin's Press, NY, 2005. p.191-192.
8. McConnell, R.A. “Psi Phenomena and Methodology.” American Scientist, Vol. 45, No. 2 (MARCH 1957): p. 136
9. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cassandra-vieten/esp-evidence_b_795366.html

• Pseudoscience articles under contentious topics procedure
• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• Misplaced Pages former featured articles
• Featured articles that have appeared on the main page
• Featured articles that have appeared on the main page once
• Old requests for peer review
• All unassessed articles
• C-Class paranormal articles
• High-importance paranormal articles
• WikiProject Paranormal articles
• C-Class psychology articles
• High-importance psychology articles
• WikiProject Psychology articles
• C-Class Occult articles
• High-importance Occult articles
• WikiProject Occult articles
• C-Class Skepticism articles
• Mid-importance Skepticism articles
• Skepticism articles needing attention
• WikiProject Skepticism articles
• C-Class Alternative views articles
• High-importance Alternative views articles
• WikiProject Alternative views articles
• Articles edited by connected contributors