Talk:Scientific investigation of telepathy

message: Selmo, looks good.  I got tired of the "page is too long" warning. -THB 16:55, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks :) -- Selmo (talk) 17:30, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

message: I've made some major changes.  The main reasons were that 1) the page was (and is) biased against the existence of telepathy in both tone and content. 2) There were some biased sources-- it's great to have the skeptical POV, but only as such; also, Randi et al aren't as close as we can come to objective-- it's better to cite people like Hyman, Wiseman, and Truzzi  3) Randi's challenge isn't really a scientific investigation.  It's debunking from a debunker, and deserves mention only in something like the "See Also" section which I added.  4) There were some unsourced seemingly POV assertions, such as "These were supposedly caused by a subject who didn't like him guessing incorrectly on purpose in order to spite him."
Martinphi 00:37, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your edits appear to be appropriate and NPOV to me. -THB 03:43, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Changes

message: under Soal-Goldney experiments:
* This experiment was offered by Alan Turing when questioned on why he believed in telepathy, saying that this had proved it.[citation needed] He was apparently unaware of the significant evidence of fraud in the experiment.[citation needed] 
According to Alan Turing: The Enigma, by Andrew Hodges, page 416, it was J. B. Rhine's work that impressed Turing, not this one.  Bubba73 (talk), 01:14, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another citation needed 

message: :"Such methodological failures have been cited by skeptics as evidence of the probability that most if not all parapsychological results derive from error or fraud."[17]
I don't see that this quote is backed by the citation referenced; rather that the link (to www.banachek.org) references Project Alpha itself. The quoted statement above not only needs referencing itself, but moreover qualifying: how many skeptics have made this comment? One or two? Any notable ones? I have moved the reference insertion point to the proceeding sentence, and have added a fact template to this one. — BillC talk 23:22, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This statement is undoubtedly true, and could be sourced.  But one would have to have at least two people saying this.  And, it doesn't say much for the quality of skepticism (though the common reader would take it to mean that parapsychology is riddled with fraud- thus, it is an unsupported slur).  Why don't you take it out? Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 23:50, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Methodological failures 

message: This article contains basically 90% of the same information that the Parapsychology article contains except with some pointless details. In my opinion it would be best if we took a few bits of info from this article, added them to the parapsychology article, and then simply redirected it. Wikidudeman (talk) 18:02, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scrap this article? 

message: This sentence:
"Those who believe that telepathy may exist say that very few experiments in psychology, biology, or medicine can be reproduced at will with consistent results. "
is not referenced and makes a pretty substantial claim.  It also seems quite untrue.  I am deleting it.Desoto10 (talk) 22:13, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Controversy