Talk:Parapsychology/Archive 3

message: Archive 2 has been created with a link at above right. The previous Archive 1 page link has also been moved there. Archive 3, when needed in the future, should be a new subpage (same as creating an article) titled "Talk:Parapsychology/archive3" and the link added to the template on this page's code. Some of the talk pages prior to November 29, 2006 to the beginning (18 Aug 2001) may also have used the refactoring method of talk page management. Archives 1 and 2 therefore may not be a complete record of all discussions (though the very first post is in Archive 1). To view other archived talk pages follow these steps: 1. Click on the "History" tab at the top of this page. 2. Click on any date that you wish. That's all you have to do. You will be taken to Wiki's archived talk page for that date. To find the very first talk pages, click on the "Earliest" link at the bottom of the "History" page and scroll down to the links at the bottom of the page. For further information on archiving see Wikipedia:How_to_archive_a_talk_page or click on "Archives" in the upper right archives info box. 5Q5 18:54, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Talk Page Archive

message: Concerning a series of computer-controlled ganzfeld experiments done by the parapsychologist Charles Honorton in the 1980s, magician Ford Kross, an officer of the Psychic Entertainers Association wrote that
In my professional capicity as a mentalist, I have reviewed Psychophysical Research Laboratories' automated ganzfield system and found it to provide excellent security against deception by subjects.[32][5](Radin 1997:86)(My bolding)
The quote features an incorrect spelling of "ganzfeld", which should be checked against the source.  If it is an error in the source, "sic" should be added.
Additionally, I believe "ganzfeld" in the first paragraph deserves a wikilink to the ganzfeld page.
Jouster 23:29, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for checking my spelling.  Go ahead and give it a link (: Martinphi 07:30, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ganzfeld 

message: Tried to reach a more neutral position for those chaps who seem so put-upon.  The profferred link does not work - I even explored Mr. Hess' website at some length without success - but I left the link for the more ambitious to fix. If Mr. Hess really has good statistics showing a substantially smaller fraction of grant proposals for "psi" research are funded maybe I would relent on the wording there. There are so many proposals denied for things like writing quality, finding the right office to which to send it, budget, or the competition from proposals judged to be more valuable that is would be in any case (without using psi powers) to know why a given proposal is rejected. Carrionluggage 22:29, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your wording seems fine, I added one sentense.  I also fixed the link, thanks for checking it.  Try to use a heading on this page, so people know what you're talking about. Martinphi 00:04, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Parapsychology as Taboo

message: I re-inserted some old stuff, with edits and sources, moved the Parapsychology as Taboo bit to a new place, as it no longer fit its heading. Martinphi 23:01, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A lot of tightening up has to be done on this section. At several spots it is not clear what is meant when you are talking about statistics. If cannot figure it out sometimes. Also some repsonse only partially answer the critisism and are silent about the rest. Below response is too long and misses out on some new insights in normal psychology and science (I marked those in bold): 
"Psi" is the name for an unknown factor, not necessarily for a force or factor outside the current range of scientific knowledge.  However, it does seem that psi has some features which may be outside the range of current scientific theory.  For instance, the Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research Laboratory often included a precognitive aspect (Damasio finds the same and attributes this to unconscious decision making mechanisms in the brain), and the studies obtained very highly significant results. The Conscious Universe: The Scientific Truth of Psychic Phenomena by Dean I. Radin Harper Edge,  (Radin 1997:91-109)   Skeptics and parapsychologists generally agree that, as per Occam's Razor, simple explanations should be preferred for any resulting theories of psi (what is the point of Occam in this context; Occams sais something like: When 2 theories have the same explanatory power the one with the least far-fetching assumptions is generally preferred). Some parapsychologists are critical of skeptics' explanations of parapsychological results (for instance that they are the result of fraud) specifically because such explanations are un-parsimonious (The problems is that there has been more frauds then in most other fields. The assumption 'There is only fraud' is very parsimonious (one single assumption of which even some evidence exist...). The field has to live with its own heeritage.  It often stretches the imagination to believe that parapsychological results are due to fraud or other conventional explanations (this is no argument).  Conventional explanations, many parapsychologists believe, should also conform to Occam's Razor (So do traditional scientists; the problems is the debate how far-fetching the Psi assumption is; this crops up in evolution as well all the time, assuming an omniscient, omnipotent deity is only one assumption and thus much more parsimonious then any theory evolutionist can come up with). Then there are others, both skeptics and proponents, who agree that nature itself is frequently un-parsimonious (Which does not matter as Occams talks about science not nature, the razor is about explanatory power of a model (ie a simplication of nature): If you design a model which better explains reality then traditional ones, the model can be more complex, but if two models perform exactly the same, the simpler is preferred).  After all, it would be much simpler if nothing at all existed, or if only one type of particle existed, or if there were only one dimension of space (as may exist in a black hole). -- These issues need to be rephrased in my opinion to more neutral and (yes ;-) parismonious ways. Arnoutf 10:10, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Criticism and response

message: I've added historical/philosophical refs I think the article needs - about scientific revolutions.Rikstar 01:32, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: State of the controversy

message: Arnoutf, I don't think you realized quite how controversial the recent additions to the summary were.  Even if you have good refs from a parapsychological peer-reviewed, or other authoritative, source and a good skeptical source, is the summary really the place to discuss the reasons? (You stated it as fact, not opinion; even as opinion, it's too much.)  Also, you need a source for saying the research is "state-of-the-art."  This is sometimes true, but if you say it some skeptic is going to come along and qualify or remove it anyway.  And the research can't all be that good. Why not discuss this kind of thing in the section made specially for it, having merely stated in the summary that there are differences of opinion?  Also see response above.  Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 20:51, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually I only moved the sentence from the first line; and you have to agree the critics say this (true or not), but I see that it is better placed in the critisism section then in the intor summary (where critics are quoted who are actually stating this). Arnoutf 21:08, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: From the first line?  I went back and I don't understand, but I'll take your word for it.  Yes, your right that of course the critics say it.Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 22:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Unsourced addition to summary

message: Kazuba, you're usually better than that.  You edited the following:
::Although parapsychology has its roots in earlier research, it began using the experimental approach in the 1930s under the direction of J. B. Rhine (1895 – 1980).Encyclopedia of Occultism & Parapsychology edited by J. Gordon Melton Gale Research,  Rhine popularized the now famous methodology of using card-guessing and dice-rolling experiments in a laboratory in an attempt to find a statistical validation of extra-sensory perception.Encyclopedia of Occultism & Parapsychology edited by J. Gordon Melton Gale Research, 
To include:
::Rhine's sensational results have never been duplicated, nor has anyone produced reliable evidence that a psychic can rotate a delicately balancred pin under a bell jar. Rhine repeatedly tried, but with failures he never reported.  Skeptical Odysseys edited by Paul Kurtz, Prometheus Books, 2001 
The word "sensational" was POV.  The reference to pins and bell jars was apropos of nothing.  And the unduplicated "results" are unspecified.  And, more important, this edit is simply a smear if it is not accompanied by a very great deal of context, to make it clear exactly what is being challenged.  It looks to me like it needs its own article, perhaps "History of the Rhine Research Center", or to be included in the article "Fraud in parapsychology."
Also, it might be better to edit the main "History of parapsychology" article, where there might be enough room for nuance so that you could include these assertions, of course in a less POV manner, or as an opinion.  
You edited a link in a way which made it cease to work:
You changed 
to

Please confine skepticism to specific statements, not general ones (an exception would be if you are, say, giving an example of skeptical rhetoric), and give sufficient context so that the reader can judge the content for himself.  If at all possible put skepticism not in the general text of the article (which reflects the scientific consensus in the field of parapsychology, not the "truth," general consensus, or skeptical consensus), but in the "Criticism and response" section. Wikipedia articles follow the Scientific consensus of scientists in a particular field, see this.
You have many good ideas and sources, and I'm sure we can work together to improve the article.  It's just that the article has grown up a bit since you last looked in (: Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 06:16, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent Edit

message: I have added a reference to an "eminent scientist" who felt the Parapsychology Association should be reviewed as a member of the 
AAAS. I feel it is valid and necessary. As for the reasons given for moving the reference and quote pertaining to Persi Diaconis, I can only express my disapproval, but I am weary of explaining why. It seems some contributors are going to steer this article their own way, whatever others say. I do not mind the inevitable ups and downs of the editing process, but I'm gonna see how this article develops without my input.Rikstar 15:06, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Rikstar, that is a good paragraph.  Why would anyone take it out?  It's specific, sourced, adds to the dialogue.  It's NPOV in context. Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 01:11, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Status of the Field 

message: I separated the Criticism and Response section into two because the second paragraph is worded in such a way as to make it sound argumentative. If anyone can improve it to be more encyclopedic and less "So there!" in tone, it would greatly improve the article. (I'm not familiar enough with the subject to do so myself.) --  Noclevername 01:21, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm, yes, the tone does seem a little so-there, on both sides, but especially the parapsychology side.  But, it's a so-there kind of debate, to tell the truth, so it's an accurate representation.  I chose that as an introduction to the main article.  I like your edits, all except the heading.  Perhaps you could be more specific about what should be changed? Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 03:23, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Rebuttal?