Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
Synchronicity is not just something acausally connected — it's one of the hallmarks of synchronicity, that one has "self fulfilling prophecies"; why convictions, things you would die for are supported by synchronicity and things which you feel deep down are amoral are not. It's why depression is based around negative self talk, and self talk is so important: it's like spiritual anorexia. This is not to mention that the comments that people who have many positive synchronistic moments are characteristic of schizophrenic delusion. That's just offensive in today's climate especially with the negative and pro-science tone that's taken in the article. If you just use your head it's easy to see natural laws don't work the way they taught you in high school; science doesn't work everywhere in the universe and at all distance scales because we say it does, but because we test it and observe it, and can make a guess that "for our observable universe" science applies. The idea that synchronicity is pseudoscience in a negative connotation is ridiculous, just as much as any other observation in unproven ground. But the masses need to be led by dogma that such things are 'pseudoscience' and that everywhere in the universe science unconditionally applies. I feel this article is written with a heavy bias. As someone with schizo affective disorder I definitely am affected by synchronicity a lot to the point that it almost guides my research and is a way of conversation with fate. But you pervade ignorance, and refuse to see any truth to reality. You have to open yourself up to enlightenment, or you'll just remain sheep for the shepherd. ] (]) 13:19, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
Revision as of 13:28, 5 May 2024
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.
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.
This article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
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
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
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
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
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Parapsychology, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.ParapsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject ParapsychologyTemplate:WikiProject ParapsychologyParapsychology
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
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.
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. --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, Oeqtte00:10, 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, Oeqtte11:54, 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.
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, Oeqtte02:37, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
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)
![[REDACTED]](https://u3vuiephb.global.ssl.fastly.net/File:Paranormallogo1.png){kind=link}
