Talk:Psychic/Archive 2

message: Martinphi seems to insist on inserting this piece of information:
: A 2006 poll showed that college seniors and graduate students have more paranormal beliefs than college freshmen. 
This may be relevant to "popular culture", but it certainly has no relevance to the science section. What students believe or do not believe and why is an interesting question, but it is independent from the reception within science, and more specifically, within the sciences of physics, biology and psychology. Moreover, the referenced website is rense.com, a source of conspiracy theories; it would be helpful to at least provide a precise reference --Eloquence* 07:46, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, the poll was in the "Controversy and skepticism" section, which wasn't a "science section."  You only recently added a "science" section, which did not include that reference.  This is not a scientific article in a scientific journal, so the information is perfectly applicable to this informational encyclopedic entry.  Perhaps a better reference can be found.  Please tag such entries with the  tag instead of outright deletion.  It is the polite and recommended way to handle such entries. I know it's difficult to have the patience such a course takes, but I think we all ought to try and abide by that - unless of course the entry violates WP:BLP or presents a legal issue for Wikipedia.  Additionally, the section you deleted titled "Controversy and skepticism" was an excellent addition to the article and should be put back.  Dreadlocke  ☥  21:01, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Correction, the poll followed the phrase "The issue of whether or not psychic abilities are real is controversial within science." This is a non sequitur. If anywhere, this statement belongs in the "popular culture" section, where I've moved it. I don't doubt the claim, mind you, but if it is to be cited as a web reference, we need a better one than rense.com, ideally directly to the survey itself.--Eloquence* 22:02, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, a better reference should be found.  Dreadlocke  ☥  00:40, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fate Magazine is the actual source, and it is indeed a WP:RS.  I've added the citation.  Dreadlocke  ☥  21:48, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

text: "While only 23 percent of the freshman quizzed professed a belief toward paranormal concepts, the figures rose to 31 percent for college seniors and 34 percent for graduate students. The complete results of the survey may be found in the January-February issue of The Skeptical Inquirer."  Perhaps we can find an online version in the Skeptical Inquirer.  Definitely a RS.  Dreadlocke  ☥  21:53, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

text: If one reads the article in rense, and investigates what it says, it gets even better.  One of the people who set up the poll is Bryan Farha, associate professor and chair, Department of Behavioral Studies and Counseling Psychology at Oklahoma City University. He regularly writes for CSI (formerly CSICOP) and SI!  This poll is also mentioned (and well sourced) in the Wikipedia article, "Level of support for evolution": level of public support.  That's sourcing, man.  Dreadlocke  ☥  22:07, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

text: With this "newly discovered" involvement with CSI, it's now related to Scientific investigation - even if it's just a poll.  Which suggests it is no longer just a "popular culture" reference.  Dreadlocke  ☥ 
Yes. . . but these scientists are investigating popular attitudes, not the question of whether psychic is real or not. Puddytang 05:22, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  College student poll 

message: i added a new link after getting consensus so on the Talk:Sylvia Browne page. Smith Jones 02:00, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed both links. There was not consensus on that page, there was just the suggestion that it might belong more here than there. Honestly, both seem to meet WP:EL#Links_normally_to_be_avoided. That is, they have objectionable amounts of advertising (I'm getting popup warnings on Firefox and without Adblock, adverts are everywhere), and do not appear to be even semi-reliable. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 03:52, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links 

message: The article states "in the field of parapsychology is that certain types of psychic phenomena such as psychokinesis, telepathy, and precognition are well established scientifically." This is patently false. Parapsychology is not a field of science. It could be loosely called a "field of study" but it does not fit the definition of "science".Wikidudeman (talk) 02:54, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Parapsychology is not a field of science. 

message: MartinPhi, why are you defending the following statement?
The scientific consensus in the field of parapsychology is that certain types of psychic phenomena such as psychokinesis, telepathy, and precognition are well established scientifically.
This is ridiculousness of the highest order and is even worse than the statement I originally objected to earlier on this talk page. There is simply no way that any self-respecting scientist would call magical abilities like psychokinesis and telepathy "well-established scientifically". In addition, your revert targets the edits of several uninvolved people who have visted the article and tried to make it more NPOV. Would you care to explain your revert? – Lantoka (talk) 21:25, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, that's your POV.  But there is a scientific field called parapsychology, in which self-respecting scientists have come to a consensus (which I have sourced to the website of the Parapsychological Association which has been a member of the AAAS since 1969), that certain types of parapsychological phenomena such as those mentioned in the article, are scientificallyl well-established. Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 21:32, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If that is true, then I have lost all faith in the field of parapsychology. It is most certainly not a respectable scientific field then. Do they really claim this? Your first two sources for that statement are just essays debunking critics who criticize the scientific practices of the field, and your third reference is a glossary entry. I didn't see any of those sources actually claim that "psychokinesis, telepathy, and precognition are well-established in the field of parapsychology", although I could be missing something. I only skimmed them. – Lantoka (talk) 21:45, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Martinphi, See my above refutation of the assertion that parapsychology is a field of science because it belongs to the AAAS. Secondly, Since parapsychology does not fit the definition of science saying there is any sort of "scientific consensus" within parapsychology is factually incorrect.Wikidudeman (talk) 21:48, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

text: It isn't POV... it really is ridiculous. Even though there are many pseudo-scientists that claim that they have proof, there are no peer-reviewed studies that show any proof of "magical" mental abilities. None. Zero. If some scientist really had proof of "psychic abilities", he would win the Nobel Prize. Really. Seriously. He would. (As well as winning James Randi's million bucks).  -- Big Brother 1984 21:53, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ridiculous 

message: :Parapsychology is a science as regards Wikipedia policy.  Wikipedia policy states that Wikipedia articles follow the scientific consensus within a particular field (see  this).  Many or most psychic phenomena fall under the purview of parapsychology.  This article, therefore, primarily presents the scientific consensus in the field of parapsychology. 
:::"Honesty and the policies of neutrality and No original research demand that we present the prevailing "scientific consensus". (see link above) Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 21:29, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: However the scientific consensus is that the field of parapsychology is 95% bunk.Geni 21:34, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 95%? I think you're being slightly generous. Science is based on evidence, not myth. And until parapsychology finds some evidence to back up its claims, it will always remain in the land of myth. I supposed you could call parapsychology a "science", but only in the sense that the field of parapsychology repeatedly demonstrates that the paranormal doesn't exist. -- Big Brother 1984 22:01, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

text: That is your POV, and of course you have a perfect right to it.  However, the AAAS feels differently.  For the purposes of Wikipedia, parapsychology is a field of science.  Any other kind of standard would also call into question such fields as psychology and sociology.  We aren't in that epistemological business. Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 21:55, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Martin, That's not only my point of view. That's an established fact. Parapsychology is NOT a science. The AAAS does not claim it's a field of science. Since you didn't want to read my above post allow me to restate it..The "Para psychological Association" is an "affiliate" of the AAAS. This does not mean the AAAS recognizes that association as a "scientific association", it just means the Para psychological Association is an affiliate of the AAAS. Notice also that the "American Library Association" is also an affiliate. Does this mean that this is a "field of science" now too? Secondly, Appealing to the fact that it's a member of the AAAS does not imply it's a field of science. Even if the AAAS thought it was that doesn't make it so. It's a blatant fallacious appeal to authority and irrelevant to whether parapsychology fits the definition of science.Wikidudeman (talk) 22:04, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikipedia policy 

message: It is true that there are arguments about whether parapsychology is properly a science.  But that is the case with many other disciplines, which we here on Wikipedia still present as sciences.  Parapsychology gives all the outward signs of being a science, such as using scientific method and laboratory methodology.  It has chairs in universities.  It has departments in universities.  It is a member of the AAAS.  It has Nobel Laureates who believe in it.  Just because you don't like it, doesn't mean it isn't a scientific field.  And just because there is controversy about whether a dicipline is a scientific field doesn't mean it is not: see sociology, psychology, etc. Even James Randi thinks it is science, see link above where he says "I offer you this set of observations on the sorts of materials available to the public, and how that can tend to detract from the reputation of the science of psychology".  Emphasis added.
:Randi speaks of the science of psychology, not parapsychology.--Boloboffin 18:41, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Martinphi, 1. How does parapsychology follow the "Scientific method"?  2. Parapsychology having "chairs in universities" or "departments in universities" is irrelevant to it's definition of science. Having a "chair or department" in a university doesn't make it science. 3. What link does James Randi claim "parapsychology" is a science?Wikidudeman (talk) 22:23, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Really now Martinphi? So if I claimed that "Astrology" is a science then no one who isn't an astrologer could criticize it? C'mon! I can criticize "parapsychologies" assertion it's science all I want. Wikidudeman (talk) 22:25, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Let's see those "peer reviewed journals".Wikidudeman (talk) 22:25, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

text: no we arent in that posistion wikidudeman because that wuld be a violation of wps' no original research rule and any thing that violates in the rules that is not valid. Smith Jones 22:27, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree with Smith Jones. However, I'm sure plenty of respectable figures in the scientific community have done this research for us. We should start reading up on sources. – Lantoka (talk) 22:29, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Me establishing that parapsychology is not a field of science would not violate original research because there is plenty of research out there supporting my assertions.Wikidudeman (talk) 22:31, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You will certainly find claims that parapsychology is pseudoscience.  However, you will also most certainly not find sources which will prove that parapsychology does not meet the definition of science if you read that page.  And considering that it meets all the other standards mentioned above, I think that though you will find any number of sources saying that parapsychology, like psychology, is not science or is pseudoscience, you will not be able to take away its scientific status as reguards Wikipedia.  We need others to weigh in on this discussion, as many others are interested in this page. Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 22:42, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's look at parapsychology and see if it fits the definition of "science". Does it follow the "scientific method"? I say it doesn't. You say it does. Give me an example of an experimental study published in a notable peer reviewed scientific journal that established some paranormal thing like psychics. I'll examine that study and explain how it did not follow the Scientific method and had methodological flaws. Thus establishing studies that show "psychics" for example are real don't follow the scientific method negating the assertion such studies are even science.Wikidudeman (talk) 22:50, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

text: WIKIDUDMAN the burden of proof is on YOU! you have to find a parpsychologies study and proof that it is not folloqing the scientific method. also, not all sicnece have to follow the scientifc method because that is only one opinion and there are other ways to do science other than that ojust one way.  Smith Jones 22:53, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought the Sokal Affair rather shot that one down. Still if you instist see Project Alpha.Geni 23:02, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually the burden of proof is on the one making the 'positive assertion'. That means the person claiming something to exist or to be true rather than the person denying it. If you want to prove parapsychology is a field of science then simply post a study supporting the existence of "psychics" for instance that has not methodological flaws and follows the scientific method.Wikidudeman (talk) 23:16, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

text: If a scientific study follows the scientific method then it won't have methodological flaws.Wikidudeman (talk) 23:56, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Status of the field

message: :Maybe we should split the fiorst section entitled "Psychical research" in half. one secton will be 'Overview' that talks about what psychical research is and the different kinds and the next one will be 'history' and it willtal k about how the theing started and what its doing now. the way it is right now is a jumbled mess and if ti stays like that when it might be speedly-deleted. Smith Jones 03:08, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  IDEAS 

message: Is there a reason a great deal of Wikipedia articles on psychic subjects are using the word "psi" now in the opening paragraph? I know you can just click the term to find out what psi means, but isn't it simpler to just say "psychic phenomena"? Don't get me wrong, I like the word psi itself, but it really only means something to the handful of parapsychologists out in the world who use the term. It fits in the parapsychology sections, but when looking for a word to use in the opening statements, it doesn't make sense to use "psi" over "psychic phenomena". A short while back, everyone was using "psionics" in these sections and that makes the same amount of sense. Readers have no idea what you heck you guys are talking about. I'm not saying we should dumb it down completely, but at least in the opening section it's best to use common terms.
Plus, there's some question of whether it is a correct term to use. Currently the article reads "As a noun, the word 'psychic' denotes an association with the professed abillity to produce psi." In some of these articles, editors are advocating that psi isn't necessarily a psychic phenomena, just that it's a measurable anomaly. I don't agree with that interpretation, but that's what they are saying. If that's true, then the line really reads as "As a noun, the word 'psychic' denotes an association with the professed abillity to produce a measurable anomaly." That's not exactly saying the same thing. Whether psychics are real or not (hence the word professed), psychics produce psychic phenomena, not just any ol' phenomena, if they produce anything at all.
The way it goes is this: Parapsychologists study psi (an industry term). Psychics produce psi as far as parapsychologists are concerned. To the rest of the world, none of this matters because psi is not a common or familiar term. Hence, bump it down to the parapsychology section and out of the opening statements.
:OK.  But it is simply not correct to say that a psychic is someone with the "professed" ability to use psi.  The term "psychic" describes someone with the real ability to use psi, even if such ability does not exist.  What the sentence says now is that anyone who says he is a psychic automatically is, and that isn't true. Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 21:56, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: IT doesnt say anythting like that, MartinPhi.youre just reading too much into that sentence. Smith Jones 22:36, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Psi