This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Hob Gadling (talk | contribs) at 13:30, 19 March 2021 (→Einstein). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 13:30, 19 March 2021 by Hob Gadling (talk | contribs) (→Einstein)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)| 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. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 3 months  |
 | Daily page views
|
 | 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:
|
 | 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.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
![[REDACTED]](https://u3vuiephb.global.ssl.fastly.net/File:Paranormallogo1.png){kind=link}
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
Article overhaul
The current page is extremely weak and lacks nuance. Most significantly, the definition section is repetitive and highly unreadable. I propose that definition section be organized into three sections: dictionary, scholarly, and separation from magical thinking. I have fixed the definition section up based on scholarly research and citations. There may also need to be a history section. Although Jung coined the term "synchronicity" there is substantial overlap with the concept of magical thinking that has a long history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Z5amfYVc (talk • contribs) 00:47, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
- This article is about the specific ideas put forth by Jung. There is overlap with other philosophies, but this article isn't about those, and it seems deceptive to conflate them all together.
- In any case, that's a major change to the content of the article and you should wait to see what other editors (who are more familiar with the topic than I am) think before putting your version back. There's no rush. ApLundell (talk) 01:06, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
- @Z5amfYVc: Dictionary definitions are sometimes used in articles, but it's not appropriate in this instance, since the topic focuses on the Jungian interpretation. In any case, WP:NOTDICTIONARY. Most of the changes you suggest appear to be unsourced generalizations, and overall, aren't an improvement. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:57, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
Research Section
I am proposing the addition of a research section to summarize scholarly research that has been published in peer-reviewed journals on the topic of synchronicity. This seems like an obviously needed section. However, there has been some who have dismissed the changes I have sought to include. Please state your reasons here so that we can come to a resolution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SymICiEl (talk • contribs) 00:47, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
- Must be more neutral, many psychologists consider experiencing coincidences as irrational: "On the other hand, skeptics (e.g. most psychologists) tend to dismiss the psychological experience of coincidences as just yet one more demonstration of how irrational people can be. Irrationality in this context means an association between the experience of coincidences and biased cognition in terms of poor probabilistic reasoning and a propensity for paranormal beliefs." (Mark K. Johansen, Magda Osman, 2015, "Coincidences: A fundamental consequence of rational cognition")--37.47.87.143 (talk) 10:49, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
Okay, I suggest adding this paragraph then to help balance the views of different researchers on the relevance of studying synchronicity. In addition, I suggest not linking to a separate article "Research on synchronicity" at this time. Instead, I suggest seeking consensus for adding the research section in the main article and expanding that section first. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SymICiEl (talk • contribs) 13:45, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
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. I asked at WP:FTN what others think. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:29, 19 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 "
- 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 "
- 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