Talk:Anomalous phenomenon

message: I added quite a bit to the article in a recent edit. Sorry if this bothers anyone. I felt the article was seriously lacking in any real information about anomalies and appeared to be more just a list of "See also". I feel the new version more accurately describes anomalous phenomena as the proverbial glitch in the matrix without it being "all about" the paranormal. Cheers. --Nealparr 08:02, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: These recent additions to content make a strong, positive difference in the quality of this article, which is much appreciated! Cynthia Sue Larson 16:22, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks! Since the authorship of wiki articles is collaborative, it's sometimes hard to find kudos. I appreciate the appreciation. --Nealparr 18:51, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent changes

message: Someone has suggested a merge with paranormal. Although there are differences I do wonder if they are enough to justify two entries so I am not bothered either way - I'll go with the majority decision. If this is kept separate then this section needs rewriting as per my suggestions above - I'm prepared to expad on it in my sandbox and then we can all edit it up into a form we are happy with. (Emperor 22:05, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've done a bit of consulation on this and have changed my vote from undecided to keep -anomalous phenomena is analgous to Forteana (and I wouldn't object to a move to that entry - we currently have Paranormal and a Forteana categories so this would clarify matters) and deals with the damned data. In most cases facts that don't comfortably fit in with the current worldview. So we can calss ice falls, ball lightning, etc., etc. in this category but ghosts under paranormal. If kept though it needs to be completely redone to make sure the focus of the entry is clear as I suspect it has suffered "creep" with more examples being dropped in which has made it appear to be similar to the Paranormal whereas there are worthy distinctions between them. As mentioned I'll be happy to start an example in my sandbox which we can kick around and agree upon first (Emperor 19:25, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

text: It used to be merged with paranormal (around a year ago) and it was an organizational mess. People looking for paranormal information had to wade through tons of non-paranormal stuff and vice versa. There was a reason they separated it. If things were merged again, it would just end up having to be un-merged at some point in the future, so why bother? If merged into paranormal, I would definitely like to see a lot of reduction in content. Especially in links and examples. Less is more.--Nealparr 13:16, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree - anomalous phenomena includes strange finds (like out of place objects), fringe science and other unexplained events. The Paranormal might be one suggested solution to anomalous phenomena but equally it could be that it is down to fakery or things that have yet to be included within maintream science. So this definitely needs trimming down. I'd be happy to mock up something in my sandbox to help move things forward. (Emperor 17:34, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge?

message: You have out of body experiences and near death experiences listed seperately to mental phenomena, I can't see why, OBE's, if they existed, would clearly be mental phenomena in the sense of the category.
----
Perhaps anomalous phenomena is a misnomer. The advocates assert that natural explanations in terms of observer error, unusual optical reflections, etc. are inadmissable. In their stead, theories which run counter to conventional science are asserted with little evidence.
----
IMHO, the above is unclear, but could and should be re-moved to the main page after it's expanded.  I can't tell whether it's a meta-comment (about the choice of the name of the article) or a comment about, e.g., parapsychologists.  Who are the "advocates" here (what do they advocate for)?  Also "theories" about what, and who is asserting them?  In short, is this what you mean?--
Some skeptics hold that anomalous phenomena is a misnomer, because this implies that there are real phenomena under study.  Those who believe there are real phenomena to study--parapsychologists, for example--are said to assert that natural explanations of alleged "paranormal" phenomena cannot be explained in terms of observer error, unusual optical reflections, etc.  Instead of these natural explanations, the parapsychologists (and others) advance theories that, skeptics maintain, run counter to conventional science and are supported by little evidence.
If that's what you mean, there must be a simpler way to say it.  :-)
----
Was not Quantum Physics, and even The Chaos Theory, during initial postulation rejected by mainstream scientists as a sort of "pseudoscience?"  It would seem to me that a discussion on Anomalous Phenomena and pseudoscience, any articles that expand upon these, might not be complete without inclusion of fields previously included in these categories, but is no longer labeled such.   -Invictus
I wouldn't say so.  Quantum physics met with a lot of resistance, but because the theory itself is unusual - the effects it explains were well-known at the time.  Chaos theory is mathematics, so the question was whether the theory applied to the real world.  In this case, it's not clear that there are effects or a theory to work with.
----
I'd say so, if what you say is true.  What better person to make the change than you? --LS  :-)
----
Apparently, either there are phenomena, or there is merely coincidence.  A large enough body of regularly observed coincidence (as the case of "Audie Murphy," or the family relative whom each of us has who can always tell you when the phone is about to ring) will be finally expressed by the casual observer as a discrete phenomenon.  If we are to take the position that there are no anomalous phenomena, then we should replace the page with "coincincidences, misperceptions and frauds."  Otherwise "phenomena" is as good a tag as anything.
:I believe the reference should be to Bridey Murphy, and not Audie Murphy, the WWII hero. Eclecticology 06:40 Oct 8, 2002 (UTC)
Let us take for example the practice of johrei, as practiced by the Johrei Fellowship, AKA Church of World Messianity.  Here a practicioner, according to the tenets of the faith, wears a Chinese character in a pouch about his neck which serves to help attract a universal divine light.  In an effort to alleviate the suffering of an afflicted person, he assumes a meditative mindset and holds his hand near the affected portion of that person's body, palm-facing, and "channels divine light" toward the area.  Persons so ministered to frequently go through episodes of coughing or shivering, speak of warmth, tingling in the area, etc., and walk away (subjectively, at least) improved.
Skeptics will say "hogwash" or "placebo effect" or "fraud" (never mind that there is no financial incentive to perpetrate such a fraud) or whatever.  But there will be a body of people who say - "This is a part of my life experience."  That much, at least, I think qualifies the obervation as a "phenomenon."  Certainly, there is no scientific physical explanation for what these people experience.  That would probably qualify it as "anomalous."  So, perhaps the page, category, or whatever is aptly named.
:Shouldn't there be a page for the above? lysdexia 23:25, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Miscellaneous commnets

message: In the section "Definition," the following graf ...
There are also many cases in which no theory explains observations and no scientist can be found to make theories for them, since there is no proof of the observation in the first place. For instance, science has no interest in making theories where flying saucers come from, since there is no proof that these 'flying saucers' exist in the first place. The same is true for the paranormal. Until it is proven that paranormal effects truly exist, there is no need for an explanation of them.
... doesn't make any sense to me. It doesn't fit as a definition, and it doesn't seem to add any meaning to the overall article. Besides, there are plenty of scientists who study the paranormal. For instance, understanding paranormal beliefs is a key area of study for cultural anthropologists. Unless someone strongly objects, I'm going to delete this paragraph.
:Delete it again, since science doesn't deal with proof but with founding. lysdexia 23:25, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Science and anomalous phenomena 

message: I'm going to remove this note for the time being, since there are anomalies in other fields of study (such as physics and biology), and not just the paranormal. I'd like to move the reference to the 'paranormal' section of this article, but for the time being, I can't think of a way to state it without being horribly redundant ("Someone who investigates the paranormal is called a paranormal investigator"). --InShaneee 15:51, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  paranormal investigator 

message: Hi all. I'd like to ask you, as people familiar with topics on or related to paranormal activity, to review the work at Natasha Demkina, "the girl with X-ray eyes", which has been undergoing a tug-of-war between a primary source and one of his critics. I've tried to bring it to at least NPOV but apparently I muddled the technicalities and there are still sourcing needs.
Would appreciate your comments -- the article is currently under protection but I think it can be taken out shortly.
TIA, - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 21:09, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Seeking expert eyes on [[Natasha Demkina]] 

message: I think the See Also list of links needs to be either sorted or put in a separate category, as Wikipedia is Not a Repository of Links, and the article seems to be a repository with an intro and some text. Firestorm 21:51, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  See Also 

message: I do not agree with Firestrom. All the knowledge cannot be painted either black or white. Shades of gray need a different tretment.
Charlie
: I agree with Charlie. There is certainly value for some readers in having a list of objects that are tied together by some common characteristic -- the web is full of them. This page is the most logical nexus for a wide range of phenomenae which are relatively unique; certainly people interested in anomalies benefit from an index which will lead them to other examples. Twang 02:00, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  This entry needs special treatment

message: Seeing what a few of you half-wits did to my article (based in decades of experience), I found this comment today.
And I just had to share it with you. Because it just fits.
I used to lend a hand to editing a few articles on wikipedia, but it was such an exercise in futility and frustration that I had to quit. When I first came across wikipedia, it struck me as a great idea, but after having contributions that I knew to be factual repeatedly removed or edited, I have to say that the concept as a whole is ridiculously flawed and unworkable.<BR><BR>
If you don't know, wikipedia is an online "encyclopedia" that anyone can edit. That's right, any knucklehead viewing an article can click a link and add, remove or change whatever they'd like. You're probably already laughing, wondering how anyone could possibly take such a thing seriously, and you're right. No one should.<BR><BR>
There is a small army of wikipedia geeks who apparently park on the site for hours a day waiting to check changes and remove obvious defacements and vandalism. But there's no way they can possibly know whether something is a legitimate change or not when dealing with 875,000 different topics. 
<BR><BR>
If you become involved with a certain article, you'll soon find yourself debating minutia with a bunch of humorless idiots, hell-bent on making every article read like the same clumsy, robot-drone horror show. I understand that an "encyclopedia" should have a neutral presentation. But there's neutral, and then there's mind-numbing. <BR><BR>
Style issues aside, when there are errors continually introduced into a topic I know quite a bit about, it makes me doubt the validity of the articles that I might want to read to actually learn something. How can I have faith in a pool of information that I know for a fact is polluted? Yes, I know you could say that about the internet as a whole, not just wikipedia. But the internet doesn't tout itself as the fount of all human knowledge.
Syonara, Wikipedia. The mediocrities won. Just like they did at Everything. 3rd time's the charm. Go ahead and delete this, halfwits. See you in the history books.
:Wouldn't it be better to stay and work on how to improve the article? (Emperor 17:30, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment 

message: Although there was a reversion there were actually two separate acts of vandalism (both related to "Dontay" and the reversion only fixed the more recent one. I've now turned things back to the version on the 13th  and I think I've managed to carry over the only extra bit of legitimate information that had been added - the link to the Czech version. Worth keeping an eye on this entry for further foolishness though. (Emperor 17:30, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Vandalism

message: I'm not really that happy with the entry - it seems slightly unfocused. 
*I've added in some of the "classics" into the further reading but I suspect it would be a good idea to remove some of the other more specific ones (remote viewing and channeling books can go in their respetive entries). 
*Equally the "See Also" need addressing. Personally I think it should contain entries which generally expand on the topic. Examples of specific phenomena can be grouped together and accessed via the Forteana category and the most relevant can be linked to from the examples section.
*Mainly I think the top part could be tightened up and probably bulleted (we could also move the Einstein quote to the start?). I was thinking we could go for: 
Anomalous phenomena are those that lie at the fringes of acceptance. They can be:
*Fringe science topics which may eventually be rejected or absorbed within the general consensus. Meterotites once existed in this area and cold fusion still does.
*More paranormal topics like ghosts and UFOs. Some of these may straddle the divide between this and the above, for example cryptozoolgy.
There are numerous explanations for the latter:
*Deliberate human activity - hoaxing or pranks
*Physiolgical activity - temporal lobe epilepsy, general fatigue
*Errors - misidentifications, misunderstadnings, etc.
*As yet unidentfied natural phenomena - earthlights, etc.
The important thing in the study of anomalous phenomena is to be able to sift out the data that can be easily explained (as opposed to "explained away") to see if there is actually a case to answer.
We could put the explanations under the examples. Granted it needs a polish and kicking around a bit but I wanted to get the ball rolling. Anyone got any other ideas? (Emperor 20:01, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't forget "Black ops". Martial Law 04:22, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point - we have to get a mention of Skunk works and Disinformation in there too (Emperor 16:10, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: A Spring Clean?

message: There is conflict about what books should be suggested for further reading. Is there any reason why the works of Charles Fort should not be listed? He is mentioned earlier. His very name is a synonym for Anomalous Phenomena, "Fortean". It seems bizarre not to list his books and the others that were there, as a service to the reader . --GangofOne 07:26, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Quite right - I have to say I am mystified how adding in those books to "Further Reading" can be classed as 'spam.' I have shelves of books on anomalous phenomena and if anyone wanted to get some further reading to get them into the topic then those are the very books I'd lend them (and possibly Karl Shuker's "The UneXplained" as well as the partwork of the same name). If you know of any other good general reference books on the area then add them in but 'spam'... I even made a note of what I'd done above - if people had an issue with it they could have easily dropped in here (or m talk page) and asked me to explain my actions which I'd be happy to do. (Emperor 16:23, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Suitable "Further reading"

message: Is the prehistoric/'dinosaurs are extinct' thing good? There has been a prehistoric fish, the Selacamp (sp?), found ... 69.76.192.18 05:49, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Examples?

message: Used to read:
An anomalous phenomenon is an observed event which deviates from what is expected according to existing rules or scientific theory. Sometimes the anomalous phenomenon is expected, but the reason for the deviation is unclear (See section on anomalies in science). The study of spontaneous or hard-to-reproduce anomalies may be considered pseudoscience, partly because science needs phenomena to be reproducible.
Someone seems to find that science have no need for reproducability, and someone else seems to find that the claim that, the study of non-reproducible phenomenon is pseudoscience, needs verification.  Getting verification for these claims can't be that hard.
Taemyr 08:35, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The introductory paragraph 

message: Therefore, I redirected the page to anomaly. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:37, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: However, I agree with Martinphi that the redirct should point to the newly started Anomaly (Forteana). Whether or not all anomalous phenomena are Forteana we also have to deal with how that link is used here and nearly all the incoming links are using the term as the equivalent of it . The best bet would be to find the few that aren't and change the into a link to anomaly - which as a disambiguation page doesn't tell anyone following the anomalous phenomena link anything. (Emperor (talk) 14:56, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The answer is to fix the incoming links. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:26, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

text: Since this is an ambiguous phrase, it is inappropriate to redirect it to a specific instance of it per the Principle of Least Astonishment. ScienceApologist (talk) 13:40, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Or we could do what other articles do, and go directly to the most common use -paranormal- while mentioning "for other uses see the disambig page." ——Martinphi    ☎ Ψ Φ—— 20:33, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have any sources that indicate that this is the most common use for anomalous phenomena? The term is used frequently to mean things other than Forteana. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:48, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Google.  We should follow the Principle of Least Astonishment and go directly to the article most searchers will be looking for.  We go to the usual usage, and make sure people can find the disambig page.  If you have any source which says this common sense should not be followed here, you should tell us.  ——Martinphi    ☎ Ψ Φ—— 01:10, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: So the answer is, no, you don't have any sources. Thanks for letting us know. ScienceApologist (talk) 13:05, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

text: The fact that the incoming links are using this as the equivalent to Forteana (as can clearly be seen on the Charles Fort entry for one) pretty much demonstrates the link - so following the PoLA it should go to Anomaly (Forteana). If you are concerned we can hatnote it to [Anomaly]] (as seems sensible anyway) and I'll double check the incoming links. (Emperor (talk) 22:12, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree.  And it's nice of you to do the grunt work (: ——Martinphi    ☎ Ψ Φ—— 05:13, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well it shouldn't be a big task - I have checked them and they do nearly all refer to Forteana. However, it will need checking but I'm sure it won't be "grunt work" ;). (Emperor (talk) 13:00, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have mentioned before that this is all that needs to happen. I'm glad it got through finally. ScienceApologist (talk) 13:05, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: But you've now gone through the incoming links and removed them  because they now point to a disambiguation page, effectively making the job of checking the links awfully difficult. If you were going to go through the incoming links then why not change them so they point to Anomaly (Forteana)? (Emperor (talk) 00:15, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: So often against consensus or non-consensus.  ——Martinphi    ☎ Ψ Φ—— 00:40, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: There are more anomalous phenomena than just "Forteana"