Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:17, 10 October 2021

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Synchronicity 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, 2Auto-archiving period: 3 months

Daily page views Graphs are unavailable due to technical issues. Updates on reimplementing the Graph extension, which will be known as the Chart extension, can be found on Phabricator and on MediaWiki.org.

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

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Psychology Mid‑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 Mid This article has been rated as Mid-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. Spirituality Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spirituality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of spirituality-related subjects 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.SpiritualityWikipedia:WikiProject SpiritualityTemplate:WikiProject SpiritualitySpirituality Low This article has been rated as Low-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. [REDACTED] Paranormal Mid‑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 Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. 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. Philosophy Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Misplaced Pages.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled

On the scientific opinion : science is far from having a definite answer to synchronicity hence this[REDACTED] article is pseudo-scientific.

Besides, in mathematics, the law of large numbers requires the hypotheses of independence, whereas as Jung recalled, synchronicity has nothing to do with iid random variables. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.24.162.204 (talk) 10:01, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Refs

Draft:Research on synchronicity

Please consider incorporating material from the above draft submission into this article. Drafts are eligible for deletion after 6 months of inactivity. ~Kvng (talk) 23:02, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

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. --Hob Gadling (talk) 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 Einstein and was introduced to the idea of the relativity of space and time". 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. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:15, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your edits but unfortunately we must go by what reliable and academic sources 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 noteworthy to the origins of the idea by academic sources (e.g. Encyclopedia of Critical Psychology published by Springer-Verlag, and Prof. Bishop'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 "Jung, or the guy who wrote that sentence, believed that there was some synchronicity" since the Bishop quotation only states that Jung 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, Oeqtte 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 WP:FRINGE. 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 WP:FRINGE.

This is not simply WP:IDONTLIKEIT. 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 innumerate 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. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:38, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

It still stands that if this hypothetical "vacation in Naples" is considered amply notable by academic sources and serious encyclopedias then it must receive due weight. We are talking about historical facts here, rather than scientific 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 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 "I am pretty sure that the source which mentioned Einstein ...", I can only suggest double-checking the sources yourself; besides physicists, Taoism and J. B. Rhine 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 Albert Einstein 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 contrary to this claim must also be given due weight, if such exists. Thanks for your constructive responses. Cheers, Oeqtte 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 WP:FTN what others think. --Hob Gadling (talk) 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 WP:UNDUE 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 The Tao of Physics, an article that probably needs a little work too BTW, but still, it's not development in physics, more popscience artistic synchretic presentation)... —PaleoNeonate – 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 Skeptic Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience; 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, Oeqtte 02:37, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Profoundly and Intrinsically Deranged Thinking Seemingly Evident Here

What sort of mental malfunction or derangement is it that would lead a person to suppose coincidences require any kind of explanation when manifestly, self-evidently, by their very nature, they most assuredly do not? WTF? The only unresolved question here, of any interest it seems to me, is whether Jung possessed a fairly simple, matter-of-fact, garden variety style of mental derangement? Or perhaps a rather more substantial and problematic form of derangement? Or was he just stark-raving mad? Come to think of it, who the hell cares? For my part, I can live perfectly happily hereafter with an answer of "Who the hell cares about Jung anyway? And why would anyone waste any time or thought contemplating any aspect of the views of such an intellectual irrelevancy as he, in any case?" All of which leads me back to that irresistible question psychiatry seemingly can never divorce itself from: Why is it the case so many psychiatrists and their ilk are quite as insane as they clearly are? To quote Julius Sumner-Miller, not altogether inappropriately, perhaps very pertinently indeed, the most proper, the most relevant, the most the primary, most essential, dare I suggest the only question - in any relevant and meaningful sense - must be, can only be, "Given the overwhelming empirical evidence of the innate veracity of the proposition that the study of mental illness inexorably attracts the mentally ill to itself, disproportionately so: "Why is it so?" Why indeed. May I begin by prefacing my reply, if you wouldn't mind, with that time-honoured chestnut, the King of cliches, that most odiously patronising phrase imaginable, of such great utility to the slow-witted, that happily and conveniently distracts you the reader or listener, and momentarily somewhat derails your train of thought, to my argumentative advantage overall I'm pleased to say, whilst simultaneously affording me - the afore-mentioned slow-witted, a most useful pause in which to coalesce my thoughts before I proceed, and last but certainly not least, that most elegantly useless of idioms that makes me appear so polite, so obliging, whilst saying, well, actually, nothing at all of any consequence: "Ahem! Now THAT, I think, is a very good question indeed, and thank-you most sincerely for asking it ....." Phew! Thank God I was able to get that in. Unfortunately I've just wasted a small fraction of every listener's life, and all for no real purpose whatever except to make me feel a tad better about myself, momentarily, notwithstanding I've no real, material, objective right to feel so. But no matter. To me at least! Now, where were we? ...

Might the answer be analogous in some way, any way, to the reasons for religious orders very often having numbers of members with a somewhat disturbed sexual identity vis-a-vis the wider population? Might it be because the orders intrinsically, causally and, lets not mince words, in some way proselytise to, and thereby attract, those uncomfortable with their sexuality, both overtly and covertly, spoken and unspoken, by their nature perhaps, in a somewhat nudge-nudge wink-wink say-no-more fashion, as being a place, a refuge, that can, and does - overtly - provide for, and mentally comfort and reassure, give succour if you will, in a self-referential sort of way, to those very persons disturbed by their experience of their own sexuality? Isn't that the bleedingly obvious reason, to every one of sound mind, and not within the wilfully blinkered confines of the Vatican curia at least, why orders exhibiting members with disturbed sexuality can't help but draw more of those who feel afflicted by their sexuality toward them. Thereby self-fulfilling themselves. Ensuring their continuity as an order. Reproducing, if you will, to put it somewhat crudely. But, unfortunately, all too accurately I think. Without end. Forever and ever. Amen. 

Might the psychiatric and allied professions also 'reproduce' in a way analogous to the religious orders? By drawing their 'clientele', those they purport to treat, inexorably toward their profession? Hiring foxes to guard the henhouse, as it were? Appointing Dracula to the Red Cross board? Thereby ensuring the 'continuity' of their 'professions'? Without any altogether unpleasant requirement - god forbid - to provide any scientific basis whatsoever for their prognostications. So much easier to just make it up. On the job. As you go. No need of scientific method here, thank-you very much. And wonderfully self-serving.

Some may think the archetypal example of a bullshit spinner, spinning fiction and fantasy in equal measure, is in plain sight of billions. Every day. Has been for millennia now. I couldn't possibly comment. But for some reason I just cant help wondering. Hmmm. I think I can see some similarities. Unmistakable similarities. If I'm not mistaken. Of deviant human behaviour - sexual offending - now. And the way that bloke in the book acted then. I'ts getting clearer to me now. Yep. Emerging from a fog. Can start to discern some shapes of things now..... Could it really be? The parallels are incredible. Wow! WTF! The way that bloke in the book describes his sexual offending then. And the descriptions in the media of the way religious leader types today offend sexually .... It is similar, isn't it? Just coincidence? Hmmmm. The sexual offending formula that seems to be emerging looks something like this: Religious leaders use doctrinal bullshit to psychologically browbeat their congregations and that effortlessly transmogrifies itself into .... manipulating the mindset of their sexual target to make them compliant. Keep them compliant. Obedient. Unquestioning. Psychologically resigned to being assaulted. When the offender pleases. Servile. Fuckable on demand frankly. Yep, that's a tried and true formula for grooming your sexual assault victims. No doubt about it. Is there any other way to manipulate your victim into sexual servility? Even an total idiot could recognise such blatant grooming behaviour. Couldn't they? Hmmmm. Hang on a minute. WTFx2!! I'd swear on a stack of bibles that bloke in the book is ... well I'll be buggered .... i'm pretty damn sure he was spinning pretty much the same sort of bullshit then! The sort of bullshit that can have no purpose but to confuse and weaken another person's resolve. They're resistance to you expressing your will upon them. Stuff whatever they might think. I'm the offender. Hell I matter. They're the victim. They don't matter. Do they? Damn straight they don't. If I want to fuck them what does anything else matter? Well, of course it don't matter what they think. Why'd I bother browbeating them with all that bullshit to groom them if they mattered? Makes no sense, does it? Sometimes I think I'd like to be able to fuck whoever I like. Whenever I like. Might be fun. For me. And well, damn me if that book ain't already got the perfect recipe in it for doing just that. How cool is that? Gimme that book. Now! This Abraham mother has got the recipe for sex offending - and getting away with it - for ever mind, and he'd worked it out totally 3000 years ago! God damn! Why he was so damned proud of his sexual offending there was no case for hiding it. Quite the opposite in fact. He couldn't wait to write it up in a book. For posterity I guess. Remind himself of good times. Happy memories. For him anyway. Maybe not so many other people, hey? But who cares about them. How he fucked this one. Then that one. On and on it goes. A real stud muffin our Abe. As he pleased. Bit of a braggart really, weren't he, to be honest. Still, I guess he thought he had plenty to boast of. A real man's man our Abe. God damn. S'pose he had every right to brag a bit. Even after 3000 years! What a rooter! What a man! A man for the ages our Abe. How much easier could it haver been, hey? He figured he only had to dump endless bullshit on people - remorselessly - and bingo! They started to become more compliant. Just like that. Gave up resisting his bullshit after a time. Just like that. It's so easy to manipulate people if you set your mind to it, and persevere, ain't it? Just to abuse them. Just to fuck them as he pleased. Damn it, come to think of it, these modern day sex-offenders, and Abraham, well, bugger me if I can think of any meaningful difference between them. Can you? Seems sex offenders today just copy Abe's playbook. Brilliant. Some might think it follows then that abrahamic faiths have one purpose only; the facilitation of the sexual exploitation of others. Couldn't be, could it? Just to make fucking others easier. Guess it could be, come to that. That book don't do nothing else of any use so far as anyone's ever found, does it? Proves it I guess. All the abrahamic faiths do have only one ultimate purpose: the facilitation of the sexual exploitation of others. Shit isn;t that just a sex cult? At the end o the day? Pure and simple. A plain old-fashioned garden-variety sex cult ain't it? Bugger me! Seems downright pure evil to me in one way. Guess that book really only has one message don't it. Abe gets what Abe wants. What's that you say? Abe wants to fuck your wife today? And your daughter tomorrow? If Abe wants it well, god damn, Abe should get it. Amen Brother!

• Pseudoscience articles under contentious topics procedure
• All unassessed articles
• C-Class psychology articles
• Mid-importance psychology articles
• WikiProject Psychology articles
• C-Class Spirituality articles
• Low-importance Spirituality articles
• C-Class paranormal articles
• Mid-importance paranormal articles
• WikiProject Paranormal articles
• C-Class Philosophy articles
• Mid-importance Philosophy articles