Talk:Marcello Truzzi

message: Unless someone can substantiate the need to mention the flat earth in an articale about Truzzi, it does not need to be there.
1) it is irrelevent.
2) it is out of context.
Truzzi was neither influenced by flat eart theory nor rowbothams type of Zetetecism.
I am going to delete it for those reasons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.25.118.72 (talk) 04:01, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Flat Earth

message: I added a citation flag  to this famous quote in the article because elsewhere on wiki at the article for Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal they are claiming that Carl Sagan coined it. Personally I don't care who originated it. I just want this issue cleared up. Permission is granted to delete this comment (send it to the archive) by any editor if this problem is resolved. 5Q5 19:24, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sagan used the phrase but I'm pretty sure he didn't originate it.  Bubba73 (talk), 21:31, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thinking about it more, I think that one of the Truzi obituaries (maybe the one by Paul Kurtz) gave Truzi as the originator of the phrase (although it is similar to the one of Laplace mentioned in the article).  Bubba73 (talk), 00:04, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I found an article by Truzzi in which he claims to have coined the phrase and then Sagan popularized it. I referenced it in the main article. Easy to find by doing a search on Google for "Extrordinary claims" Truzzi. I began this section. 5Q5 14:54, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

text:  OK, it is good for that to go in.  However, his phrase is basically the same as the principle of Laplace, which is mentioned in the article.  Bubba73 (talk), 15:25, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The quote "An extraordinary claim requires extraordinary proof" is contained in the first issue of Zetetic Scholar from 1978 (Note that Zetetic Scholar and The Zetetic are not the same)- I changed the page to indicate this.Fracton (talk) 07:11, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Whoever coined the exact phrase, the principle of it goes back to David Hume's Essay on Miracles, and before Hume to Conyers Middleton.2A00:23C8:7907:4B01:F499:A525:611D:2C93 (talk) 23:40, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Extraordinary claims require ..." quote 

message: In what sense was Truzzi a "skeptic's skeptic"?  Is it because he was skeptical of skeptics?  When you say that someone is a "man's man", it is a man that other men admore or would like to be like.  A "songwriter's songwriter" is a songwriter that other songwriters like.  That sense doesn't seem to apply here.  Bubba73 (talk) 04:32, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The "skeptic's skeptic" label is actually a quote from the obituary Paul Kurtz wrote for Truzzi.  The person who wrote that section of the article was, as you correctly pointed out, wrong in calling him "a skeptic's skeptic" because Kurtz referred to him not as such, but instead as "the skeptic's skeptic," a descriptive phrase possessed of connotations entirely different. Batman Jr. 08:24, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: skeptic's skeptic

message: Does anyone have a source for ""They tend to block honest inquiry, in my opinion. Most of them are not agnostic toward claims of the paranormal; they are out to knock them. [...] When an experiment of the paranormal meets their requirements, then they move the goal posts. Then, if the experiment is reputable, they say it's a mere anomaly."?  The quote is under discussion at the CSICOP article's talk page, and we'd like to source it if possible.  Thanks.  Mike Christie 00:32, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that there are some statements at least similar to that in his book The Blue Sense: Psychic Detectives and Crime, which I have.  It would probably be difficult to find though.  Bubba73 (talk), 00:48, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I spent a few minutes using the index to see where it might be, and I didn't locate it.  Bubba73 (talk), 01:09, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quote source? 

message: I'm not very happy with the accusation that he exaggerated Ganzfeld experiment success.  We cannot confirm this because there is no link to the source.  Is there a more NPOV way to state that claim or is there someone who has the actual referenced article and can cofnirm that it characterized him in that way?  If he did and the article proves it, then quote the article in block text, don't characterize what it said.  Also the Detroit Free Press doesn't strike me as a terribly reliable source.  WHat was there primary source?  DFP is no more reliable than say The Los Angeles Weekly, another free paper supported by ads and handed out at record stores and coffee shops.  A better source would be helpful.  I'm sure there must be one available.  LiPollis 01:56, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Ganzfeld experiments

message: The paragraph about Blue Sense is highly problematic. It does not at all reflect what the authors write in the book, and it doesn't give any source for the "this is said to be typical of Truzzi's approach" statement (which, by the way, came from a highly biased comment by Robert Todd Carroll). On page 284, Lyons and Truzzi state: "We unearthed evidence supporting both sides in the controversy. We hope to have shown that much of the debate has been extremely simplistic." I tried to add this quote but somebody reverted it, saying it wasn't there. But it is. I did a scan of the page, so don't tell me it isn't there:
http://allyoucanupload.webshots.com/v/2005394598451549665 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.244.225.44 (talk • contribs) 
: I have the book, and that is on page 251 of my book (the hardback edition).  Amazon lists only one edition.  Is yours the paperback?  You can restore it.  Bubba73 (talk), 17:58, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On the next page in my copy, they say "And the evidence of the blue sense does not yet meet the heavy burden ofproof many scientists demand for validation of what they see as such extraordinary claims."  Bubba73 (talk), 18:04, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  PS, I'm sorry for reverting your edit, but I saw this edit from an IP address that has had only two previous edits, and those were months ago.  The statement was made that it was on page 284 of the book.  I turned to page 284 of my hardback edition, read it twice, and it wasn't on that page. I thought it was a form of vandalism.  Bubba73 (talk), 02:53, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Blue Sense

message: This is copied from the Debunker article. Maybe some of it can be used here:
* Debunkers are often controversial because their critiques of such things as religion and pseudoscience may offend believers. Some, such as Marcello Truzzi (who self-identified as a skeptic), maintain that some skeptics go too far and assert negative claims, and thus are not true skeptics but "pseudoskeptics". According to Truzzi,"On Pseudo-Skepticism: A Commentary by Marcello Truzzi" from Zetetic Scholar, #12-13, 1987 genuine skeptics are neutral or agnostic, often critical of extraordinary claims, but do not make negative claims by denying them. Instead they "demand extraordinary proof"Marcello Truzzi: "And when such claims are extraordinary, that is, revolutionary in their implications for established scientific generalizations already accumulated and verified, we must demand extraordinary proof." Editorial in The Zetetic (Vol. 1, No.1, Fall/Winter 1976, p 4). This statement is often abbreviated to "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof." before they will accept extraordinary claims as proven.
-- Fyslee / talk 04:31, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems OK to me.  But if someone makes a claim based on some reasoning or evidence, and someone examines that claim and shows flaws in it, that is debunking.  That isn't asserting a negative claim, it is demanding proof of a positive claim instead of accepting it on faith.  Bubba73 (talk), 15:09, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Very true. Debunking isn't necessarily negative, and when done properly is actually a very necessary and positive duty for scientists. -- Fyslee (talk) 02:08, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

text:  It comes down to 'authority.' I began as a trained medical laboratory technician. I have been test engineering both hardware and software for over 30 years. The Test Oracle is the key to this controversy. What is accepted as 'The Standard' let alone a 'Gold Standard' as legitimate? In engineering, the requirement or specification is usually the Oracle which decides acceptance or rejection. Dr. Deming defined the concept of Operational Definition, which includes Oracles, back in the 80's. Who decides? w.r.t. What criteria? and What is the Test of that criteria? and What rule or Oracle says Accept or Reject? ~~Patnclaire (talk) 12:55, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible use here? 

message: I'm considering merging pseudoskepticism either here or to scientific skepticism.  Please discuss on talk:scientific skepticism. --TS 15:44, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: After nearly a week to allow for comments I'll now go ahead with a merge of Pseudoskepticism to Marcello Truzzi.  It can always be reverted if it doesn't work out. --TS 21:59, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge of [[pseudoskepticism]]

message: We are using at least three different formats for quotes, and I think we should be consistent and use one type. I favor the simple colon indentation with quotation marks. The other methods aren't forbidden, but they have a tendency to draw attention to the quote in question. This is sometimes used by both sides of the issues to bring more attention to their favorite quote, and that's a form of POV editorializing. What say ye? -- Fyslee (talk) 02:13, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quote format 

message: An image used in this article, File:Zetetic-scholar-12-13.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 4 June 2012 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
* If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review
To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Zetetic-scholar-12-13.jpg)
This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 20:59, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: File:Zetetic-scholar-12-13.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

message: Substituted at 23:04, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Marcello Truzzi. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.scientificexploration.org/founding-members.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080602021158/http://66.221.71.68/psir.htm to http://66.221.71.68/psir.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:41, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The origin of the parallel construction phrasing of the meme, "X claims require X" is sometimes said to be Truzzi but no source is cited here. 73.89.25.252 (talk) 22:54, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources for claim that Truzzi is credited for the "extraordinary claims require" adage