This is an old revision of this page, as edited by ජපස (talk | contribs) at 11:04, 2 November 2019. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 11:04, 2 November 2019 by ජපස (talk | contribs)(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}
Paragraph that does not seem to relate to the topic
The Criticisms section contains the following paragraph:
In psychology and cognitive science, confirmation bias is a tendency to search for or interpret new information in a way that confirms one's preconceptions, and avoids information and interpretations that contradict prior beliefs. It is a type of cognitive bias and represents an error of inductive inference, or is a form of selection bias toward confirmation of the hypothesis under study, or disconfirmation of an alternative hypothesis. Confirmation bias is of interest in the teaching of critical thinking, as the skill is misused if rigorous critical scrutiny is applied only to evidence that challenges a preconceived idea, but not to evidence that supports it.
It seems unclear how this is a criticism of synchronicity. Is it inferring that the experience of synchronicity is really just an example of confirmation bias?
- Seems that way. But since the source does not mention synchronicity, the inferring is done by the WP user who wrote that. Which WP users should not do.
- Synchronicity is a bunch of baloney, and confirmation bias obviously plays a role, but the paragraph does not belong in the article. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:42, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
- I wanted to delete it, but it is an integral part of the chapter, which is partly WP:OR and partly appropriate. Separating the wheat from the chaff needs more work than I thought. What do others think? Which parts can stay? --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:47, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
References
Unexplained redirect
The link "plate o' shrimp" redirects here with no reason given. That's linked from Baader-Meinhof, among other places, meaning that a search for the Baader-Meinhoff effect gives you an unexplained intermediate phrase before arriving here. Can anyone explain why or remedy that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.61.42.21 (talk) 04:08, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
- It was a reference to a line from the film Repo Man. -165.234.252.11 (talk) 16:07, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
Refs
Wording in regards to the paranormal
I'm sorry, but how is "arguing for the existence of the paranormal" a more soapbox version than "try to justify his belief in the paranormal"? The former does not suggest any stance towards the issue, merely describes how Jung employed the concept. The latter suggests that Jung's beliefs were transgressions which demanded or demand justification. Clearly, the tone of the former is far more encyclopedic.--MASHAUNIX 13:31, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
- Because there is no evidence for the existence of the paranormal. Joefromrandb (talk) 20:38, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
- You need to consider WP:WEIGHT. When irreducible complexity is used as an argument for intelligent design, we call it pseudoscience. Jung's synchronicity is also pseudoscience, and we, as an encyclopedia, do not give equal time to pseudoscience and quackery. Joefromrandb (talk) 23:10, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
- You miss my point. I am not saying that any paranormal phenomena actually exist, and that they do not is clearly expressed in the paranormal article. However, this is not the space to express that, merely the space to indicate how Jung employed the concept of synchronicity. He did not employ it to "try to justify his belief" because his belief (or any other belief) does not require any justification, or at least not from the point of view of encyclopedic description. Our article on Jung states that "Jung's work on himself and his patients convinced him that life has a spiritual purpose beyond material goals." Should this (or other such statements) be changed to "Jung's work on himself and his patients led him to the mistaken belief that life has a spiritual purpose beyond material goals." or similar? Clearly not; WP:WEIGHT needs be considered in the articles on the subject matter itself, e.g. paranormal, spirituality, but not in articles of this sort where such value judgement adds no informational value.--MASHAUNIX 16:00, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
- That's not true. Take someone like Kent Hovind, for instance: Hovind is an adherent of young-Earth creationism, and a self-styled cryptozoologist. We don't say that these beliefs are incorrect, but we most certainly assert that they are pseudoscientific. The same applies here. No, we don't say that Jung was "mistaken" or "incorrect", but we do make it clear to the reader that his "theory" was clearly pseudoscience. Joefromrandb (talk) 03:54, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
- Incidentally, your edit that I reverted didn't say: "arguing for the existence of the paranormal"; it said: "to describe the paranormal". Joefromrandb (talk) 03:59, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, but when I changed that to a more neutral wording you reverted me again. Comparing Jung to Hovind is IMO absurd. Nevertheless, my issue is fundamentally with the use of the word "justify" here as I find it unsuitable to address the issue. "Jung used the concept to justify his belief in the paranormal" is somewhat ambiguous; it could even be read to indicate that the action was conclusive and he succesfully justified the belief, or on the other read to suggest that his belief was "incorrect" (which you say is not appropriate) or even insincere. Simply stating that he held the belief and argued is completely sufficient to get the message across; the very word "belief" makes it clear that this is not sound scientific theory, since by definition no belief is backed by evidence.--MASHAUNIX 10:36, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
- I think you're mistaken (or perhaps I am); the 2nd revert I made was identical to the 1st. I would not have reverted "arguing for the existence". Incidentally, if you think I'm comparing Jung to Hovind (apples to oranges), you're seriously missing my point. I'm comparing pseudoscience to pseudoscience (apples to apples). Joefromrandb (talk) 19:33, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
- Fair enough, so can we agree on this wording?--MASHAUNIX 17:36, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
- I think you're mistaken (or perhaps I am); the 2nd revert I made was identical to the 1st. I would not have reverted "arguing for the existence". Incidentally, if you think I'm comparing Jung to Hovind (apples to oranges), you're seriously missing my point. I'm comparing pseudoscience to pseudoscience (apples to apples). Joefromrandb (talk) 19:33, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, but when I changed that to a more neutral wording you reverted me again. Comparing Jung to Hovind is IMO absurd. Nevertheless, my issue is fundamentally with the use of the word "justify" here as I find it unsuitable to address the issue. "Jung used the concept to justify his belief in the paranormal" is somewhat ambiguous; it could even be read to indicate that the action was conclusive and he succesfully justified the belief, or on the other read to suggest that his belief was "incorrect" (which you say is not appropriate) or even insincere. Simply stating that he held the belief and argued is completely sufficient to get the message across; the very word "belief" makes it clear that this is not sound scientific theory, since by definition no belief is backed by evidence.--MASHAUNIX 10:36, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
- You miss my point. I am not saying that any paranormal phenomena actually exist, and that they do not is clearly expressed in the paranormal article. However, this is not the space to express that, merely the space to indicate how Jung employed the concept of synchronicity. He did not employ it to "try to justify his belief" because his belief (or any other belief) does not require any justification, or at least not from the point of view of encyclopedic description. Our article on Jung states that "Jung's work on himself and his patients convinced him that life has a spiritual purpose beyond material goals." Should this (or other such statements) be changed to "Jung's work on himself and his patients led him to the mistaken belief that life has a spiritual purpose beyond material goals." or similar? Clearly not; WP:WEIGHT needs be considered in the articles on the subject matter itself, e.g. paranormal, spirituality, but not in articles of this sort where such value judgement adds no informational value.--MASHAUNIX 16:00, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
This line about Bernard Beitman seems weak and weird
A thought for the experienced editors of this entry to consider: the comment, "However, professor Bernard D. Beitman (who is not a mathematician) accused the law of truly large numbers of not being well established but based on "plausibility, not mathematical proof," does not seem to belong here. It links to a recent blog-post type article in Psychology Today, which is not a very reliable source, and certainly not a peer-reviewed academic paper, and, with the greatest of respect, Beitman does not seem sufficiently noteworthy to appear in an entry about Jung.
- Beitman's statements are only an example of point of view of some contemporary Jung's supporters with high scientific degrees, personally I prefer David Hand's explanation of coincidences, however added this line to make article more neutral. So generally I'm not opposing of removing it as in fact fringe.Qsr03 (talk) 11:17, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
- There are opinions that the law of truly large numbers is special case of 2nd Borel-Cantelli lemma, which has mathematical proof.Qsr03 (talk) 19:47, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
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)
- 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